As the tile suggests the state of recognition and assistance jurisprudence & practice in Hong Kong is less than clear. This follows the recent (mostly) conflicting 1st instance decisions of Up Energy and Global Brands. Here are my views about (i) what I believe is settled; (ii) the points of judicial difference; and (iii) what remains unclear.

Settled

This week’s TGIF examines the decision in Re Farley Bay (in liq) [2022] VSC 604, where an insolvency proceeding was successfully transferred to the Federal Circuit and Family Court despite the Supreme Court of Victoria considering the Applicant’s ultimate proprietary claims to be ‘weak’.

Key takeaways

The Restructuring Directive of 20 June 2019 harmonises insolvency legislation for the first time at the European level.

An important part of this Directive concerns preventive restructuring frameworks, which aim to limit the unnecessary liquidation of viable companies.

In Belgium, this will mainly impact judicial reorganisation, and more specifically judicial reorganisation by means of collective agreement.

This is an important update in the Australian corporate and insolvency law context because, in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and others [2022] UKSC 25, the UK Supreme Court (being the UK’s highest court) confirmed the existence of a duty owed by directors to creditors in certain circumstances (creditor duty). Under the common law and equity (together, general law), there is a gateway to applicability of the creditor duty in Australia.

An extension to the Debt Warehousing Scheme has been announced by the Revenue Commissioners.

The Debt Warehousing Scheme (DWS) was introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic to provide support to businesses that were experiencing liquidity and trading difficulties. It has permitted businesses to “warehouse” or defer payment of their tax debts for a specified period.

The recent case of PSV 1982 Limited v Langdon [2022] has clarified what is a ‘relevant debt’ of a company which uses a ‘prohibited name’ and for which a director or person who manages that company can be personally liable for. 

Who will be interested in this article?

Executive Summary

Objective

In the context of an insolvent or near insolvent company, a receiver will be appointed, in the ordinary course, by a secured creditor seeking to have the assets which are the subject of its security realised to enable the payment of its claim. The appointment, most often, will be made under the agreement by which the security is granted or might be made under one of the property law statutes which authorise the appointment of a receiver by the court for the purpose of enforcing a security.

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment in BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA on 5 October 2022. This important case addresses the duties of directors to consider the interests of creditors as a company approaches insolvency.

While the judgment will be welcomed by many as providing some useful guidance on a number of issues, there still remain some key areas of uncertainty which, as we consider in further detail below, will present clear challenges for directors seeking to navigate their way through a company’s financial difficulties.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“SC”) has recently handed down a decision in the case of BTI v Sequana, dealing with the powers and duties of company directors. The appeal was expected to be of considerable importance.

This alert is especially relevant to companies, and directors of companies, in financial distress, as well as creditors and insolvency practitioners.

Key Takeaways