Ernst & Young ("E&Y") has settled the Akai Holdings ("Akai") case with Akai’s liquidator, Borrelli Walsh. In this case, E&Y was accused of negligence for failing to avert Akai’s collapse in 2004.

E&Y had been Akai’s auditor prior to the collapse, which remains Hong Kong’s biggest ever insolvency. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

On 24 September 2009, the South China Morning Post reported that new evidence had come to light which suggested that E&Y’s staff had tampered with or faked hundreds of documents relating to its audit of Akai.

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?

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:

The main aim of the revision of the Hungarian Bankruptcy Law, effective September 2009, was to make the bankruptcy proceeding more attractive for creditors as well as debtors, to make clearing debt in the course of a bankrutpcy proceeding more effective and, with the increasing number of bankruptcy agreements, to decrease the number of liquidators.  

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

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (‘IBBI’) was established under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘Code’). On 31st March 2017, IBBI in exercise of its powers under the said Code notified the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Voluntary Liquidation) Regulations, 2017 (‘Regulation’). It came into force with effect from 1st April 2017. The Regulation provides for a complete framework for the voluntary liquidation of any corporate person.

Background

Background