Offshore Litigation

Blog

Offshore Litigation

Contributors

Jonathan Addo
Jonathan Addo
  • Jonathan Addo

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jeremy Child
Jeremy Child
  • Jeremy Child

  • Partner
  • London
Julie Engwirda
Julie Engwirda
  • Julie Engwirda

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Peter Ferrer
Peter Ferrer
  • Peter Ferrer

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Claire Goldstein
Claire Goldstein
  • Claire Goldstein

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
Hazel-Ann Hannaway
  • Hazel-Ann Hannaway

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Nick Hoffman
Nick Hoffman
  • Nick Hoffman

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Johnstone
Andrew Johnstone
  • Andrew Johnstone

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Paula Kay
Paula Kay
  • Paula Kay

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Phillip Kite
Phillip Kite
  • Phillip Kite

  • Partner
  • London
Vicky Lord
Vicky Lord
  • Vicky Lord

  • Partner
  • Shanghai
Paul Madden
Paul Madden
  • Paul Madden

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Henry Mander
Henry Mander
  • Henry Mander

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Ian Mann
Ian Mann
  • Ian Mann

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
William Peake
William Peake
  • William Peake

  • Partner
  • London
Lorinda Peasland
Lorinda Peasland
  • Lorinda Peasland

  • Consultant
  • Hong Kong
Chai Ridgers
Chai Ridgers
  • Chai Ridgers

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
Nicola Roberts
Nicola Roberts
  • Nicola Roberts

  • Partner
  • Hong Kong
  • Singapore
Paul Smith
Paul Smith
  • Paul Smith

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Andrew Thorp
Andrew Thorp
  • Andrew Thorp

  • Partner
  • British Virgin Islands
Jessica Williams
Jessica Williams
  • Jessica Williams

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands
Jayson Wood
Jayson Wood
  • Jayson Wood

  • Partner
  • Cayman Islands

“Scanty in the extreme restructuring proposal” not recognized - Hong Kong Court re-casts common law recognition

In a recent case by the Hong Kong High Court in the matter of Li Yiqing v. Lamtex Holdings Ltd, Mr Justice Harris wound-up a foreign Bermudian company, listed on the HKEX, that had already been placed into “light touch” provisional liquidation in Bermuda, and adjourned the decision to recognise the provisional liquidators.

In his decision, Mr Justice Harris questioned whether the current practice in Hong Kong to only recognise insolvency practitioners appointed in the place of incorporation should be changed so as to allow for recognition of insolvency practitioners that have been appointed by a foreign Court, for example, in a company’s COMI (applying UNITRAL Model Law analogous principles) or a jurisdiction with which it has a “sufficiently strong connection” (applying the common law "sufficient connection" test for exorbitantly winding up a foreign company). This is consistent with the obiter dicta of Chief Justice Smellie of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands in Re Sun Cheong Creative Development Holdings Limited, as to cooperation between the Grand Court and the Hong Kong Court.

It was held that the following approach should determine which jurisdiction should be the primary jurisdiction to conduct a company’s insolvency process:

  • The place of incorporation should be the jurisdiction in which a company should be liquidated - following the private international law rule that the status of a company is determined by its place of incorporation. In cases in which a listed company’s business is in the Mainland it may be necessary because of the common structure of such groups for the holding company, if it is incorporated in an offshore jurisdiction, to be wound up in its place of incorporation in order for liquidators to have any prospect of obtaining control of Mainland subsidiaries, however; 
  • If the COMI of a company is elsewhere, then regard should be had to other factors:

    • Is the company a holding company, if so, does the group structure require the place of incorporation to be the primary jurisdiction for an effective liquidation or restructuring of the group?
    • The extent to which giving primacy to the place of incorporation is artificial, having regard to the strength of the COMI’s connection with its location.
    • The views of creditors.

It was held that “the facts of this case justify the court making the order sought by the creditors who have come forward to express a view on the present controversy. The COMI of the Company is in Hong Kong and it has not been argued before me that if the Company is to be wound up this should be done in Bermuda or that a winding up order in Hong Kong would be futile”.

The decision is clearly analytically sound, and correct on the facts. It may even be said to always have been the better interpretation of the common law of Hong Kong, in that forum shopping seeking to deny creditors their legal rights, relying upon “scanty in the extreme” restructuring proposals, is undesirable. In such a case, a winding up should follow. It is a timely reminder that in filing restructuring proposals through the use of light touch provisional liquidation, practitioners should ensure that the offshore court can be satisfied that the proposals are truly better for the creditors as a whole. 

“Scanty in the extreme restructuring proposal” not recognized - Hong Kong Court re-casts common law recognition