The insolvency proceedings of the Lehman Brothers' group of companies worldwide ("Group") are among the most complicated ones we have seen. A significant factor contributing to the complexity is that many Group entities hold segregated assets (principally securities and funds) for their clients, which may be individuals or entities within or outside the Group.

Where a company purported to enter into a loan and security transaction with a bank where the transaction displayed clear issues of conflict of interest issues in relation to the company's CEO, held that the bank could not assert that the CEO had apparent authority to enter into the transaction.

Hong Kong's highest court has considered for the second time in recent years the conduct of examinations under section 221 of the Companies Ordinance. That section enables (amongst other things) a court to compel any persons whom it believes may have information concerning the affairs or dealings of a company in liquidation to be examined in private under oath.

Summary

The amendment to the Hungarian Insolvency Act came into force on 1 July 2017, with the aim of enhancing the protection of beneficiaries of security interests, and clarifying the position of creditors in liquidation proceedings, which are secured by call option, security assignment or pledge over future receivables.

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:

Shareholders who fail to intervene to stem the losses in a company they control may be held personally liable for the company’s debts if it is subsequently liquidated, according to the Supreme Court.

Under Hungarian law, a shareholder’s liability (in a limited liability company) is usually limited to their capital contribution. The corporate ‘veil’ can only be pierced (making the shareholder personally liable for the company’s debts) in special circumstances.

Changes to Hungarian bankruptcy law mean that priority will be given to creditors who pledge property as security or collateral. Minor changes to Hungarian corporate legislation require companies to list specific court registration information on their official correspondence and websites.

Introduction

Key Points:

No provision in the Code or insolvency regulations dictates that the bid of any Resolution Applicant has to match liquidation value of the estate of the Corporate Debtor. If the resolution plan has been approved by the Committee of Creditors by application of their commercial sense, as well as the plan has been considered as proper in terms of Section 30 of the Code, the Adjudicating Authority cannot interfere or re-assess the same under Section 31 of the said Code.