Hong Kong is the only common law jurisdiction within the People’s Republic of China and one of the few financial centres in the world without a formal rescue mechanism in its legislation. Hong Kong has not enacted legislation to recognise corporate rescue over simple liquidation.

Successor liability is a catchall term for a group of legal theories that, in certain circumstances, allow a creditor to recover amounts owed by its obligor from a person or entity who succeeds to the assets or business of that obligor. Typically, claimants cannot pursue successor liability against a purchaser in a bankruptcy sale because most sales are made "free and clear" of such claims under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. However, there are some limited exceptions to this general rule.

A winding up petition is a legal document that can be served by a company’s creditors when they are owed money by the company. If the debt amounts to £750 or more, then a creditor has the right to go to court and ask for a winding up petition to be issued, although courts view this remedy as something that should be reserved for when a company is genuinely believed to be insolvent, and not simply used as a means of debt collection.

Assume that you have a company which has ceased trading and is left with a cash balance. You could extract most of the cash by paying a dividend, but that would be inefficient for tax purposes (resulting in tax rates of up to 39.35%). So, instead, you decide to wind the company up and receive the proceeds as a capital distribution, taking advantage of the lower capital gains tax rates (generally at 10% or 20% depending on the circumstances). Surely that is legitimate?

The case ofLiberty Commodities Ltd v Citibank NA London & Ors [2023] EWHC 2020 (Ch) provides a helpful reminder of the principles that the court will adopt when dealing with a winding up petition – particularly where there are supporting creditors.

Overview

• The UK Supreme Court issued a recent decision in R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38.
• Crucially, the Court determined that an administrator is not an officer of the company within the meaning of the phrase 'any director, manager, secretary or similar officer of the body corporate', for the purpose of section 194(3).

Contents

R (on the application of Palmer) v Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and Another [2023] UKSC 38

Singapore’s highest court has definitively held that foreign insolvency, restructuring or liquidation proceedings concerning solvent companies should be recognised in Singapore (Re Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation) v SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32), overturning a first instance decision taking the contrary view.

Background

In R (on the application of Palmer) (Appellant) v. Northern Derbyshire Magistrates Court and another (Respondents), the Supreme Court held that an administrator appointed under the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) is not an "officer" of the insolvent company under section 194(3) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (TULRCA).

Introduction

The judgment of Chief ICC Judge Briggs in Re Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased); Eternity Sky Investments Ltd v The Estate of Zhang Zhenxin (Deceased) and Anor [2023] EWHC 2744 (Ch) is of interest because, as the judge himself remarked, there is little authority on the appointments of interim receivers in cases of individual insolvency; and for that matter there is little on the administration of the estates of deceased insolvents, that being the condition of the debtor in this case.