No Respite for Distressed Companies in Hong Kong
In Hong Kong, a company that is financially distressed may generally only avoid being liquidated or wound up if it:
In Regent National Enterprises Limited v Goldlion Holdings Limited [2009] HKCFA 58, the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal found that a liquidator had acted reasonably in relying on his solicitor's advice and invoking a force majeure clause, even though the advice later turned out to be erroneous.
The number of international arbitrations involving the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre doubled between 2004 and 2008. The number of winding up petitions is also currently on the rise because of the poor global economic environment. This article discusses conflicts that may arise between the statutory insolvency regime and the contractual rights of parties to arbitrate their disputes in Hong Kong.
Can Arbitration Be Used To Circumvent Statutory Insolvency Regimes?
The Hong Kong Government has recently released the conclusions to its public consultation on the proposed corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading laws. The consistent theme throughout the conclusions paper is that the Government will propose practical compromises in order to overcome the contentious issues that have stalled previous efforts to introduce a statutory regime to facilitate corporate restructurings.
Hong Kong's highest court has recently considered the extent of the court's sweeping jurisdiction under section 221 of the Companies Ordinance, which enables it (amongst other things) to compel companies in liquidation to produce documents and for individuals to be examined on oath. The case will be welcomed by liquidators given that the court unanimously confirmed that it has jurisdiction to make such orders under this "extraordinary" section.
Section 221 of the Companies Ordinance and its predecessor sections have been with us for a very long time – its origins can be traced back to the Companies Ordinance 1865. It has been described as a vital part of the statutory insolvency regime, and there are corresponding provisions in the UK, Australia, Singapore, Canada and New Zealand. Because section 221 and its overseas equivalents have been around for so long, there is a wealth of authority on its scope and purpose.
But first, a reminder of the Court’s powers under section 221. These are:
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.