The Facts

The debtor borrowed significantly from leading domestic investment banks to finance a major construction project. The loan was secured by a pledge established on all of the debtor’s existing and future claims, including rental fees arising from an office building owned by the debtor.

What Happens to Pledges over Receivables when the Pledgor goes into Liquidation?

• Az Igazságügyi Minisztérium 2018-ban látott hozzá az új Fizetésképtelenségi Törvény előkészítéséhez, amely kapcsán erős szakmai igények fogalmazódtak meg – többek között a reorganizáció elősegítését vagy a hitelezők nagyobb arányú megtérítését illetően.
• A 2019 nyarán hatályba lépett Szerkezetátalakítási Irányelv lehetőséget biztosít egy eddig a magyar jogban nem létező eljárás, az ún.

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.

Potential liability for wrongful trading

In Hungary the Act no. XLIX of 1991 on the insolvency and compulsory winding up procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Insolvency Act”) established the term “wrongful trading”. Under section 33/A of the Insolvency Act a manager of a company shall be personally liable if after the occurrence of threatening insolvency (i.e. when the company is unable to settle its liabilities when due) the director’s duties have not been fulfilled based on the priority of the company’s creditors’ interest.

Under Hungarian insolvency law, creditors secured by mortgages or pledges are entitled to privileged satisfaction of their claim, meaning concretely that they are entitled to receive the whole proceeds reached in the course of the realization of the pledged property after deduction of the (i) cost of keeping the property in good repair and of maintenance, and costs of selling the pledged property; and (ii) the liquidator’s fee up to 5% of the net purchase price.

The Goods and Services Tax (GST) Council during its 39^th meeting, held on 14 March 2020, decided that a special procedure should be prescribed for corporate debtors undergoing the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), in order to enable such entities to comply with the provisions of the GST laws.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘IBBI’) vide its notification dated March 29, 2020^[1] has issued clarification regarding the period of exclusion for Insolvency Resolution Process. Through, the issuance of the above mentioned notification, the IBBI has amended the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 to include the following:

On 17^th January, 2020, the Republic of India (India) made a remarkable move with the issuance of a Gazette notification which notified the inclusion of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as a “reciprocating territory” for the enforcement of judgments (Reciprocating Territory Notification). This alert expands on the features of this new development and the potential benefit for individuals, companies (including financial institutions) in the UAE that have default debtors located in India or with assets in India.