This quarterly civil fraud update provides a summary of reported decisions handed down in the courts of England and Wales in the period April - June 2021.
CONTEMPT OF COURT
Given the current situation brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, the Malaysian economy has been badly affected with serious supply chain disruptions due to the nationwide lockdown. This has resulted in the tightening of companies’ cash flows and has given rise to an urgent need for companies to implement rescue mechanisms and restructure their businesses.
In another leap forward for cross-border insolvency cooperation between Hong Kong and Mainland China, the Hong Kong Court has issued its very first letter of request to a Mainland Court requesting recognition and assistance of Hong Kong liquidators under the new arrangement for mutual recognition of and assistance to insolvency proceedings introduced on 14 May 2021 (New Arrangement, which we wrote about
Introduction
The Ministry of Law ("MinLaw") has announced that the application period for the Simplified Insolvency Programme ("SIP") has been extended to 28 July 2022. The application period was originally set at six months (from 29 January 2021 to 28 July 2021). However, in light of the continued challenges in the business environment arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, MinLaw has extended the application period for another year.
Simplified Insolvency Programme
On 20 July 2021, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance granted an application by Hong Kong liquidators to issue a letter of request for assistance to the Shenzhen Intermediate People’s Court. This was the first application made under the new cross-border cooperation mechanism, which we reported in a previous note (click here).
Background
Good faith, honesty, and transparency are the watchwords of Canada’s insolvency regimes. Where a debtor makes a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”), but the Court finds that instead of acting in good faith it engaged in self-interested behavior designed to benefit other members of a corporate group, the Court will uphold the BIA’s principles and refuse to sanction the proposal.
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981, the Court of Appeal clarified that in determining whether a bankruptcy order should be rescinded, the court is entitled to take into account facts both before or after the bankruptcy order. To succeed, an applicant for rescission has to show exceptional circumstances, involving a material difference to what was before the court earlier, to justify the overturning of the bankruptcy order.
Background
簡介
中華人民共和國最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）與香港特別行政區政府於2021年5月14日簽訂了《最高人民法院與香港特別行政區政府關於內地與香港特別行政區法院相互認可和協助破產程序的會談紀要》。在試點計劃下，香港的清盤人可向內地試點地區的有關中級人民法院申請認可香港的清盤程序；同樣地，內地的破產管理人可向香港高等法院申請認可內地的破產程序（「試點計劃」）。最近在Re China All Access (Holdings) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1842一案中，香港法院首次考慮這項近期發展及試點計劃。
背景
简介
最近在Re Cheung Hing Chik also known as Charles H.C. Cheung, the debtor [2021] HKCA 981一案中，上诉法院澄清，在决定是否应撤销破产令时，法院既可考虑在破产令发出之前的事实，也可考虑在破产令发出之后的事实。要成功申请撤销破产令，申请人须证明涉及与先前法院席前证据有重大差异的特殊情况，作为推翻破产令的充分理据。
背景
本案是就一项于2020年8月3日发出的破产令（「该破产令」）提出的上诉。呈请人是一间公司，其银行帐户被破产人偷去或挪用了749,000美元。于2020年2月27日，呈请人就上述金额向破产人发出法定要求偿债书，但不获还款。在2020年8月3日进行的呈请聆讯上，破产人口头上表示他能够偿还该债务，因为：
- 他可将其于张庆植会计师行有限公司的50% 权益出售，估计约值600万元；及
- 他可能会收到若干其他资金。
法官不信纳，并认为没有证据显示破产人能偿还债务，因此发出了该破产令。
简介
中华人民共和国最高人民法院（「最高人民法院」）与香港特别行政区政府于2021年5月14日签订了《最高人民法院与香港特别行政区政府关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和协助破产程序的会谈纪要》。在试点计划下，香港的清盘人可向内地试点地区的有关中级人民法院申请认可香港的清盘程序；同样地，内地的破产管理人可向香港高等法院申请认可内地的破产程序（「试点计划」）。最近在Re China All Access (Holdings) Ltd [2021] HKCFI 1842一案中，香港法院首次考虑这项近期发展及试点计划。
背景