The Grand Court has allowed the appointment of a Provisional Liquidator under section 104(3) of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (the Act) for the purpose of facilitating a restructuring, rather than using the tailor-made Restructuring Officer provisions under section 91(B) of the Act.

Background

In Arab v Pan, in the matter of Pan (No 3) [2024] FCA 563, the Federal Court of Australia addressed critical issues concerning the scope and compliance of summonses for production in bankruptcy, which will also impact corporate insolvency proceedings and such proceedings in other common law jurisdictions.

Is it possible for a debtor company to issue debt (such as bonds) and contractually agree for that debt to rank lower in priority than debts owed by a company to other unsecured creditors? This article examines the commercial uses of subordinated debt agreements, and considers how courts in the offshore jurisdictions of the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda would treat a subordinated debt agreement in a winding-up.

In the recent decision in Blockchain Group Company Limited (in liquidation) v. PKF Hong Kong Limited¹, Le Pichon DHCJ decided that despite an error resulting in a protective writ naming the defendant as a limited company and formerly a firm, the relevant provisions to amend a party’s name could not be used to essentially replace the limited company with the firm.

Introduction

When the restructuring officer regime was introduced, it was assumed by many that joint provisional liquidators would no longer be appointed for restructuring purposes, having been overtaken by the new regime.  The recent decision of Re Kingkey Financial International (Holdings) Ltd suggests that this assumption may not be sound.  It also raises several interesting points regarding the restructuring officer regime that merit further consideration.  This article considers the Kingkey case, and the points arising from it

In Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited[2024] HKCA 299, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP, Barma and G Lam JJA) held that the approach regarding exclusive jurisdiction clauses in bankruptcy proceedings laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in Re Lam Kwok Hung Guy, ex p Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (2023) 26 HKCFAR 119 (“Guy Lam CFA”) (upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgm

The landmark Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) decision of Re Guy Lam[1] has generated numerous articles written by practitioners and academics on the interaction between exclusive jurisdiction clauses and the court’s jurisdiction to wind up or bankrupt a debtor. Following the CFA’s decision, the Guy Lam bankruptcy continued to impact our legal landscape when the Court of Appeal handed down a novel decision on the treatment of the costs and expenses of the bankrupt trustees (for whom TDW acted) in circumstances where the bankruptcy order was overturned in appeal[2].

In the case of Re China Properties Group Limited (in Liquidation) [2023] HKCFI 2346, the Hong Kong Court has shown its commitment to providing assistance to local liquidators appointed by it by asserting in personam jurisdiction over a Hong Kong based director of a company incorporated in a foreign jurisdiction.

On 4 May 2023, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) delivered a landmark judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam (Respondent) -v- Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (Appellant) Final Appeal No.13 of 2022 (on appeal from CACV No. 393 of 2021 [2023 HKCFA 9) (“Re Guy Kwok-Hung Lam”).