Cayman Islands: An Era Of Cooperation: Notable Judicial Assistance By The Hong Kong Courts In Recent Cross-Border Insolvency And Restructuring Cases


Hong Kong is one of the leading capital markets in the world. Billions of dollars are raised on a day to day basis, from all parts of the world, through a wide range of capital and financing activities, particularly Initial Public Offerings ('IPOs'). The Cayman Islands is a popular jurisdiction for setting up listing vehicles in Hong Kong IPOs as it offers corporate flexibility, a well-established English law based legal system and tax neutrality. Of all the listed companies in Hong Kong, slightly more than half of them are incorporated in the Cayman Islands.

It is imperative that an effective cross-border insolvency and restructuring regime is in place to accommodate potential complex insolvency and restructuring scenarios involving these valuable public companies. However, one significant hurdle is that Hong Kong has been slow in introducing comprehensive legislation for the purposes of corporate rescue and restructuring. It is hoped that such legislation will be on its way. For now, the burden falls on the judiciary and the legal practitioners to develop innovative and practical solutions within the existing legal framework.

This article discusses some recent cases in Hong Kong which demonstrates how the Hong Kong Companies Court has successfully formulated innovative and practical judicial solutions to complex cross-border insolvency and restructuring issues.

Recent approach of the Hong Kong Court on cross-border restructuring

The general approach of the Hong Kong Companies Judge, The Honourable Mr. Justice Harris, can be helpfully summarised in his own words during an interview by The Hong Kong Lawyer in May 2017. In reflecting his current role at the bench he said:

'one of the things that I appreciate the longer I do this job is that what I find most satisfying is solving problems. Advocacy doesn't involve solving problems – rather you are taking part in an intellectual competition. Whilst that was stimulating when I was younger, as I have gotten older, I have become more interested in identifying efficient and effective ways to solve the types of commercial problems companies' activities give rise to and corporate insolvency, in particular. The corporate insolvency and restructuring field is about helping parties solve practical commercial issues.'

His Lordship's pragmatic and effective approach is reflected in his landmark decisions handed down in recent years after he was appointed to the Hong Kong Companies Court. The common themes of these decisions are: (i) upholding the strong presumption at common law in favour of the place of incorporation being the appropriate jurisdiction for presenting winding up petition; and (ii) recognising and assisting foreign liquidators (appointed by the courts of the place of incorporation of the company) as long as it is within the court's powers, so as to ensure proper discharge of their duties and/or overcome the limitations of the Hong Kong law as regards corporate restructuring/ rescue.

By way of background, in Re Legend Int'l Resorts Ltd [2006] 2 HKLRD 192, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal held that the statutory power to appoint provisional liquidators under the relevant legislation in Hong Kong to restructure a company's debt was not permissible. This is to be contrasted with the position in the Cayman Islands (and also Bermuda), where provisional liquidation can be used expressly for restructuring (so called a 'soft touch provisional liquidation'). The Hong Kong common law position post Re Legend was unhelpful to corporate restructuring/rescue given the absence of statutory tools to create a moratorium preventing creditors taking enforcement action of their own.

The Hong Kong court's decision in Re Z-Obee Holdings Ltd (2016: No. 183) provided a pragmatic way forward: in Re Z-Obee, His Lordship adjourned a winding up petition filed with the Hong Kong Court against a Bermuda company to allow a window for the Hong Kong provisional liquidators to apply to the Bermuda court for their appointment as restructuring provisional liquidators (permissible in Bermuda as discussed). The Bermuda court appointed the Hong Kong provisional liquidators as joint provisional liquidators of the company expressly for the purpose of restructuring. Then, the Hong Kong provisional liquidators applied to be discharged in Hong Kong, and the Bermuda court appointed joint provisional liquidators who subsequently sought recognition in Hong Kong and introduced a parallel scheme in order to effect the intended restructuring both in Hong Kong and Bermuda.

Re Z-Obee is the pioneer case in which the Hong Kong court applied judicial recognition and assistance techniques to mitigate/overcome the effect of Re Legend in a restructuring of an offshore incorporated, Hong Kong listed company.

Very recently, in Re China Solar Energy Holdings [2018] HKCFI 555, His Lordship has further clarified the position in Re Legend: notwithstanding that under the current statutory regime, the provisional liquidators need to be appointed on conventional grounds such as asset preservation and investigation, where the circumstances warrant, they can be given restructuring powers and can exercise such powers following completion of the tasks for which the appointment was made (such as asset preservation). On that basis, the Companies Judge dismissed an application to remove the provisional liquidators on the ground that their remaining role can only relate to restructuring – which appeared not to be permissible pursuant to Re Legend. The Learned Judge rightly decided that terminating the provisional liquidators just because their remaining role concerns restructuring would be detrimental to the creditors' overall interest. This would be inconsistent with the legislative purpose underlying appointment of provisional liquidators. This decision should be welcomed as it serves to mitigate the hardship arose out of Re Legend, and is very helpful in the context of cross-border restructuring.

Place of incorporation: natural forum for liquidation proceedings

His Lordship's approach on upholding the place of incorporation as being the natural and appropriate forum for winding up and appointment of provisional liquidators can be seen in Re G Limited [2016] 1 HKLRD 167. Here the Court dismissed an application for appointment of provisional liquidators in Hong Kong over a Cayman company listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. The petitioner in Re G Limited sought to wind up the company on the grounds of insolvency and to appoint provisional liquidators in Hong Kong. At the first hearing, it emerged that the company had also brought winding up proceedings in the Cayman Islands together with an application for appointment of provisional liquidators which would be heard in a matter of days. The Hong Kong Judge took the view that unless there were demonstrable pressing needs for immediate appointment in Hong Kong, the matter should be left to the Cayman Court being the court of place of incorporation. The Judge affirmed that in the conventional case an insolvent company should be wound up in its place of incorporation and then it is a matter for the liquidators to decide whether recognition or assistance is required from the court in Hong Kong. The Court considered that the most straightforward way to proceed in these circumstances would be to obtain a letter of request from the court of place of incorporation.

Notable recent examples of assistance provided by Hong Kong Court

In Re Centaur Litigation SPC [2016] HKEC576, pursuant to a letter of request issued by the Cayman Court, the Hong Kong Court was asked to grant a recognition order which was a more extensive order than what had previously been granted in Hong Kong, containing a provision requiring any person wishing to commence proceedings in Hong Kong against companies in liquidation to first obtain the court's leave. This was consistent with the 'automatic stay' provisions in section 186 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance of Hong Kong and also section 97 of the Cayman Companies Law. The Court was initially concerned that it might seem unfair to Hong Kong based creditors to incur costs in commencing legal action only to find, with no fault on their part, that the proceedings were subject to an automatic stay, but, on balance, granted the order sought.

A further notable example for Hong Kong Court granting an order recognising foreign liquidators is Re BJB Career Education Co Ltd [2017] 1 HKLRD 113. In that case, pursuant to a letter of request issued by the Cayman Court, the Hong Kong Court was asked to make an order requiring a former chairman and director to produce documents, answer interrogatories and attend an oral examination. The former chairman sought to argue that an oral examination order could not be made against an officer of a foreign company as such an order would infringe Article 96 of the Basic Law. Article 96 provides 'With the assistance or authorization of the Central People's Government, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may make appropriate arrangements with foreign states for reciprocal judicial assistance'. The former chairman's argument appears to be that such assistance to the foreign court cannot be provided in the absence of assistance or authorisation of the Central People's Government. Such argument was dismissed. The Court affirmed that the common law power of assistance extended to an order for oral examination if such a power existed in both the jurisdiction of liquidation (here, the Cayman Islands) and the assisting jurisdiction (here, Hong Kong). It further affirmed that reciprocity was not a necessary component of recognition of and assistance to foreign liquidators. It was held that the Basic Law was not contravened as the common law position was clearly part of the laws in Hong Kong prior to 1997.

More recently, the Hong Kong Court clarified (and reaffirmed) its view on powers of foreign insolvency officeholders in Re China Lumena New Materials Corp [2018] HKCFI 276.

In Re China Lumena, the provisional liquidators appointed by the Cayman Court encountered difficulties in taking control of the Company's bank accounts in Hong Kong because some local banks require to see a Hong Kong Court order before they are prepared to comply with a provisional liquidators' request for a transfer of the Company's credit balances. Citing his Judgment in Bay Capital Asia Fund, LP v DBS, his Lordship confirmed that, the ability of foreign insolvency officeholders appointed by the Court in the country of incorporation of the company to obtain documents relating to the Company's bank account in Hong Kong is generally not dependent on obtaining a prior Hong Kong Court order:

'[I]f a bank receives a request from liquidators of a company which has an account with them, once it is satisfied, which should be straightforward, that the liquidators have been properly appointed by the court of the place of the company's incorporation they will hand over documents to which the directors of the company would have been entitled.'

In Bay Capital, Harris J. explained that if foreign insolvency officeholders would like to deal with assets located in Hong Kong (as opposed to merely obtain documents/information), they should apply for a Hong Kong order authorising the transfer of such assets.

Here the provisional liquidators had argued that on the basis that they are entitled to information from the banks without a Hong Kong order (akin to the information right enjoyed by directors of the Company), it logically follows that the Cayman appointed provisional liquidators could also request the Hong Kong banks to transfer the credit balances without a Hong Kong order.

The Hong Kong Judge considered that 'this would be going too far' and would go even further than international insolvency standards envisaged in Article 21 of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.

In order to strike a balance between the foreign insolvency officeholders' need for convenience and the local court supervision which may be expected by the creditors, his Lordship maintained his view that foreign insolvency officeholders appointed by the place of incorporation are entitled to information without a prior Hong Kong recognition order; but that it would be appropriate to seek recognition in Hong Kong in order to take possession of or deal with the assets in Hong Kong. The Learned Judge particularly reminded practitioners about the standard practice for applying recognition orders and such orders may be granted very quickly, pursuant to the standard practice.

This decision is of significance to Hong Kong insolvency law practitioners and in-house lawyers, particularly those working for financial institutions. It used to be standard local practice to require sight of a 'local order' before acting on any request from foreign insolvency officeholders. Based on the Court's repeated emphasis in this case and Bay Capital, it would be incorrect for practitioners to insist on seeing a 'local order' before complying with an information request from a foreign insolvency officeholders (appointed by country of incorporation) in respect of the affairs and assets of the company. If such incorrect approach is adopted in the future, it is likely to attract judicial criticism and may lead to penalty in terms of costs.


The recent judicial approach of the Hong Kong Court reinforces the modern notion of cross-border insolvency cooperation between international courts and should certainly be welcomed.

Legal practitioners should be mindful that the country of incorporation is the natural jurisdiction to commence insolvency proceedings at common law. Commencing insolvency proceedings in the place of incorporation would ensure that, if the court so orders, the liquidation or provisional liquidation status is globally applicable.

We have seen a number of cases whereby insolvency officeholders appointed in Hong Kong over offshore companies were unable to carry out their work effectively in the absence of parallel proceedings in the place of incorporation. As discussed above, given the limitation of the Hong Kong statutory regime for corporate restructuring/rescue at present, commencing liquidation (and an application for appointment of provisional liquidators) in the place of incorporation would enhance flexibility of potential restructuring down the road.

In light of the Hong Kong Court's expressed readiness in providing assistance to offshore insolvency proceedings, there appears to be no reason for practitioners and their clients to be concerned about the foreign liquidators' ability to perform their duties in Hong Kong in an efficient manner.

Originally published by International Corporate Rescue.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Ben Hobden
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions