Showing posts with label insolvency law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label insolvency law. Show all posts

Monday, November 3, 2025

Hilary So and Anfield Tam on The Interface between Arbitration Clauses and Insolvency Proceedings (HKLJ)

"The Interface between Arbitration Clauses and Insolvency Proceedings"
Hilary So (PCLL graduate) and Anfield Tam (PCLL graduate)
Hong Kong Law Journal, Vol. 55, Part 2 of 2025, pp.321 - 340

Abstract: This article reviews the line of authorities laid down by the English, Singaporean and Hong Kong courts concerning the approach to stay or dismiss an insolvency petition where the underlying debt is subject to an arbitration clause. While the Hong Kong Approach exhibit logically inconsistencies with its policy preferences by requiring parties to take steps to arbitrate (ie the third Lasmos requirement) before the court’s discretion to stay insolvency proceedings is triggered, the English Approach is overly restrictive with excessive emphasis on the doctrinal mechanism of insolvency law. Accordingly, this article shows preference for the Singaporean Approach, which strikes a fair balance in integrating the policy and doctrinal concerns in relation to arbitration law in the insolvency context, as the basis for Hong Kong’s legal reform. This article concludes by suggesting that the court’s discretion to stay insolvency petitions should generally be exercised unless in so doing an abuse of process would be resulted. Meanwhile, it would be best practice for the parties to spell out in the arbitration clause whether they intend the clause to cover insolvency proceedings in any event.

Wednesday, October 15, 2025

Zhang Jiaqi on Rethinking Lasmos: The effect of Arbitration Clauses on Insolvency Proceedings in Hong Kong (HKJLS)

"Rethinking Lasmos: The effect of Arbitration Clauses on Insolvency Proceedings in Hong Kong"
Zhang Jiaqi (BBA(Law)&LLB)
Hong Kong Journal of Legal Studies (Volume 18, 2024), pp. 1 - 29

Abstract: When the Companies Court in Hong Kong examines a winding-up petition on insolvency grounds, and the debt that is relied on contains a valid arbitration clause, what is the correct approach for the Court so as to balance all competing interests and achieve a fair and reasonable outcome? This seemingly vanilla question has given rise to enormous debates and uncertainties in a variety of common law jurisdictions, including Hong Kong, Singapore, and the UK. This paper aims to present the development on the area of law, reconcile the competing values underlying arbitration and insolvency, and propose an ideal standard to be adopted by the Hong Kong courts. It also makes observations on judicial practices of Hong Kong courts on this issue since 1997, which may offer some insights to practitioners when drafting agreements which are governed by Hong Kong law and contain an arbitration clause.

Friday, August 18, 2023

Stefan Lo on Corporate Governance in the Context of Insolvent Companies (Journal of International and Comparative Law)

Published: June 2023
Abstract: Corporate governance has been for many years an important aspect of company law attracting much academic interest. The extensive literature on corporate governance has not often dealt with insolvent companies. Yet governance remains critical for both financially distressed companies which have not yet entered into formal insolvency proceedings and insolvent companies which are subject to formal insolvency proceedings. This article looks at particular aspects of governance involving the board of directors in the former scenario and insolvency office-holders in the latter. It surveys the law and practice relating to distressed or insolvent companies, from the time before actual insolvency through to the time of insolvency proceedings. This is done through a review of Keay, Walton and Curl’s Corporate Governance and Insolvency: Accountability and Transparency.

Wednesday, June 28, 2023

Emily Lee on Mutual Recognition and Assistance in Insolvency Proceedings across Mainland China and Hong Kong (Journal of Corporate Law Studies)

Published online: 26 May 2023
Abstract: This article examines the potential and challenges of the ‘Cooperation Mechanism’, a scheme introduced jointly by the Supreme People’s Court in China and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on 14 May 2021, for enhancing mutual recognition and assistance in insolvency proceedings. This article contends that the Cooperation Mechanism does not in itself constitute a formal mechanism for mutual recognition. To assess the impact of the Cooperation Mechanism, this article traces and analyses court decisions on recognition and assistance made before the implementation of the Cooperation Mechanism, and places them in contrast to those pursuant to or influenced by the Cooperation Mechanism. Additionally, it highlights a similar practice between Europe’s Brussels Convention of 1968 and two arrangements between Hong Kong and China prior to the Cooperation Mechanism, namely the 2006 Arrangement and the 2019 Arrangement, in carving out bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings, notwithstanding some technical differences.

Monday, May 30, 2022

New Book edited by Stefan Lo: Company Law in Hong Kong – Insolvency 2022 (Sweet and Maxwell)

Company Law in Hong Kong – Insolvency 2022
General Editor: Dr Stefan H C Lo
Sweet and Maxwel1
January 2022
750 pp.
Preface by the General Editor
Company Law in Hong Kong – Insolvency covers major aspects of corporate insolvency law in Hong Kong. As mentioned in the Preface to the 2021 edition of this work, reform in this area of law in Hong Kong has been ongoing in recent years. Following changes made by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) (Amendment) Ordinance 2016 (14 of 2016) to the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.32) (“CWUO”) in the “Improvement of Corporate Insolvency Law” reform exercise, the Government has been working on a bill for the new statutory corporate rescue procedure referred to as provisional supervision, together with new insolvent trading provisions. In late 2020, the Government had announced that the Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill will be tabled in the Legislative Council in the first quarter of 2021. Alas, expectations were dashed and the Bill has still not been finalised. Aspects of the proposals on provisional supervision expected to be in the Bill are outlined in Chapter 13. It is to be hoped that the Government re-focuses priority on the Bill for introduction in the Legislative Council in 2022.
     There have continued to be a large number of cases handed down in the past year in Hong Kong on winding up law. Three specific areas are mentioned here. Firstly, the courts in recent times have developed and refined the principles on the duty of directors to take into account creditors’ interests when a company is insolvent or likely to be insolvent. Wing Hong Construction Ltd v Hui Chi Yung [2020] HKCFI 2985 is another case dealing with this duty. The case is particularly useful in discussing the test of insolvency in this context (see Chapter 1). Secondly, a number of cases in recent years have grappled with the intricacies of CWUO s.182, which voids dispositions of a company’s property following commencement of winding up (unless the disposition is validated by the court). The winding up of Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd has spawned a number of such cases, including the Court of Final Appeal decision in Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd (in liq) v Build King Construction Co Ltd [2021] 4 HKC 590 (nature of a disposition) and the Court of First Instance case of Re Hsin Chong Construction Co Ltd (No.3) [2021] 1 HKLRD 582 (whether mandatory MPF contributions are to be validated by the court): see Chapter 9. Thirdly, there has also continued to be new cases on cross-border insolvency, as discussed in both Chapters 4 and 12, dealing with winding up of foreign companies (Re China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd [2021] 1 HKLRD 255) and recognition and assistance to foreign insolvency office-holders under the common law (Re FDG Electric Vehicles Ltd [2020] 5 HKLRD 701; Re Moody Technology Holdings Ltd [2020] 2 HKLRD 187; Re China Bozza Development Holdings Ltd [2021] 4 HKC 560). The past year also saw the entering into of a pilot scheme between the Supreme People’s Court (“SPC”) and the Hong Kong Government to facilitate mutual recognition of insolvency office-holders between Intermediate People’s Courts in certain designated pilot areas on the Mainland and the High Court in Hong Kong: see Chapter 12 and the Record of Meeting of the Supreme People’s Court and the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (14 May 2021). The scheme is the product of some years of negotiation between the SPC and Hong Kong’s Department of Justice. From the Hong Kong perspective, it is hoped that the scheme can assist in overcoming some of the difficulties which have faced Hong Kong liquidators in recovering Mainland assets of companies being wound up in Hong Kong. 

Tuesday, August 3, 2021

Zhang Xianchu on Bankruptcy Law in China (new book chapter)

"Bankruptcy Law in China"
Zhang Xianchu
in Company Law in Hong Kong: Insolvency 2021 ed. by Stefan Lo (Bloomsbury, December 2020), Chapter 14
Description: 
Company Law in Hong Kong: Insolvency by Stefan Lo.
Annual update to the application of particular areas under the Companies Ordinance (Cap.622) and Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.32)
New General Editor – Stefan HC Lo, member of the Company Law Re-write Team
2021 edition examines important changes under the following chapters:

Chapter 1 – Directors
Chapter 2 – Role and Status of Liquidators
Chapter 3 – Provisional Liquidation
Chapter 4 – Winding Up by the Court
Chapter 5 – Members’ Voluntary Winding Up
Chapter 6 – Investigations, Assets, Claims, and Realizations
Chapter 7 – Creditors in Winding Up
Chapter 8 – Schemes of Arrangement
Chapter 9 – Setting Aside of preferences and Trading Issues
Chapter 10 – Liquidation Costs
Chapter 11 – Receivership
Chapter 12 – Cross Border Issues
Chapter 13 – Corporate Rescue
Chapter 14 – Bankruptcy Law in China


Introduction of Chapter 14 - Bankruptcy Law in China:
Unlike Hong Kong, Mainland China as a socialist country practiced the so-called planned economy for three decades in which all economic activities of the country were controlled by the government with state-owned enterprises (SOEs) as the dominant business entities. Such condition was not changed until the historical economic reform and the open-door policy were implemented in 1978. Since 1978 China has been transformed into a "socialist market economy” with the 1993 Constitutional Amendment to codify the reorientation and accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001 as two primary milestones. For 40 years, China has been a hot place to attract foreign investments and in 2012 China surpassed Japan to become the second largest economy in the world. Although the Communist Party and the political ideology still play a crucial role and cause uncertainties, the market force is increasingly taking the course of the national development. After the new leadership took their office in 2012, an explicit pledge was made in the Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) on Certain Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reforms to let the market to play a decisive role in resource allocation, including further improvement of enterprise bankruptcy regime. 

In the course of dynamic market growth, the legal infrastructure has also developed rapidly. Although the short period of development has not allowed its legal framework to reach a very comprehensive and sophisticated stage, to a large extent China has made significant progress in modernising its entire legal system. In October 2011, the Chinese Government declared that a new socialist legal system with Chinese characteristics had been established, which then included the Constitution, 240 laws, 706 administrative regulations and 8,600 local provisions at that time. 

Against this background it may be useful to briefly highlight the legal sources and their main feature before embark to examine bankruptcy laws and regulations in detail. Legislative activities in China are governed by the People’s Republic of China Constitution (PRC Constitution), as amended in 2004 and the People’s Republic of China Legislation Law of 2000 (PRC Legislation Law), as amended in 2015, which classifies the legal resources into four categories with the Constitution as the supreme law of the country.  Under the Constitution, the National People’s Congress (NPC) acts as the primary legislative organ of the country. It has the power to enact and amend basic laws (基本法律) such as the Criminal Law and the General Principles of Civil Law as well as the Hong Kong Basic Law.  Its Standing Committee as the executive organ of the NPC also possesses law-making powers to pass and amend laws, provided that those matters are not reserved to the NPC.  When the NPC is not in session, the Standing Committee also has power to pass supplements and amendments to laws enacted by the NPC provided that such legislation is consistent with the basic principles of the relevant laws.

The Constitution and the Legislation Law also empower the State Council as the central government to enact administrative regulations (行政法規) in accordance with the Constitution and the national laws.  Where the NPC or its Standing Committee has not enacted any laws, the State Council may be delegated the power to enact administrative regulations on such matters first.  In practice, administrative regulations may be issued in different forms, such as measures, notices and provisions. Given the nature of the so-called socialist market economy, the central government may also from time to time issue its policies, which may have significant impacts in the market.

Below the central legislative bodies noted above, the Constitution also empowers the people’s congresses and governments of the provinces, major cities and the special economic zones to enact local regulations (地方性法規), provided that such regulations do not contravene the Constitution and the national laws and administrative regulations promulgated by the NPC, its Standing Committee and the State Council.  The Constitution also delegates to the people’s congresses of national autonomous regions the power to enact autonomy regulations (自治條例) and specific provisions (單行條例).  Moreover, all the ministries, state commissions, the People’s Bank and other state administrations directly under the State Council may also have powers to promulgate administrative provisions for matters within their own jurisdiction. 

In order to prevent, and deal with, conflict of legal rules adopted by different central and local authorities, the Legislation Law sets out some governing principles and procedures. For example, all the enactments should be filed with the Standing Committee of the NPC for record  rules with a higher legal status shall prevail over lower level rules in cases of conflict; and the Standing Committee of the NPC and the State Council may have the authority to make ruling on legal conflicts concerned  and even annual the lower level provisions. 

Unlike common law systems, the judiciary in China does not have power to interpret the law except the Supreme People’s Court (SPC). As such, the SPC has developed a practice to issue judicial circulars as binding legal authority to guide case handlings of the lower courts. The SPC promulgated the Provisions Concerning Judicial Interpretations (司法解釋) on 23 March 2007 (2007 SPC Provisions). Article 5 of these 2007 SPC Provisions Concerning Judicial Interpretations explicitly stipulates that judicial interpretations adopted by the SPC shall have the effect of the law, which may be in forms of interpretations, provisions, replies and decisions of the SPC. In addition, the SPC in recent years has promoted guiding cases practice as part of its efforts to streamline the local practice and deal to with issues and concerns newly raised. According to the Provisions Concerning Case Guidance (案例指導) of the SPC dated 26 November 2010 (2010 SPC Provisions), the local People’s Courts are required to make reference to the guiding cases selected by the SPC from the judicial decisions when dealing with the similar cases. By July 2018, the SPC had issued 96 guiding cases (指導性案例) in 18 batches. Although thus far no guiding case on bankruptcy as such has been issued, some may have implications on liquidation and bankruptcy practice. For instance, in the Guiding Case No 9 where shareholders failed to carry out liquidation in a timely manner after the company’s business license was revoked by the state administration, the First Intermediate People’s Court of Shanghai by affirming the lower court decision held the two individual shareholders liable jointly with the company for the unpaid debts due to loss of the account books and assets of the company, although they argued that they were not in a position to control the company affairs. The court pointed out that regardless of the percentage of their equity holdings and involvement in the company’s affairs, it is shareholders’ legal duty to liquidate their company within the statutory period after the business license of their company was revoked.  The SPC also published the 10 illustrative cases of enterprise bankruptcy and liquidation in 2016 and 2018, respectively, as a new practice to promote judicial practice in this area. Some local People’s Court has begun to follow this practice by publishing leading bankruptcy and reorganisation cases of their own jurisdictions.

Besides various enactments as legal resources, the judicial policy has also played an important role in legal practice. For instance, during the worldwide financial crisis, the SPC promulgated a series of policies in order to stabilise the economic conditions of the country and avoid massive bankruptcy of enterprises, such as the SPC’s Opinions on Certain Issues Concerning Correctly Handling Enterprises Bankruptcy Cases to Provide Market Economic Order with Judicial Protection on 12 June 2009 (2009 Opinions). According to the 2009 Opinions, the People’s Courts should actively coordinate with the government and the Communist Party to deal with various problems in the crisis period for maintaining social stability and to sensibly apply the bankruptcy rules. Even some enterprises were already insolvent and apparently lack of capacity of repaying their debts, the People’s Courts were required to take active rescue measures to avoid bankruptcy as long as these firms were in line with the national industrial policy with prospects. 

The latest policy in this regard was promulgated in the Principal Notes of the National Judicial Conference on Bankruptcy Trials of the SPC on 4 March 2018 (Principal Notes of 2018), which set out the direction for professional development, improvement of the administrator system, streamlining bankruptcy and reorganisation practice, enhancement of judicial enforcement and transparency and better cross-border insolvency handling. 

Monday, January 18, 2021

RGC funded Collaborative Research Project on Insolvency Law Implications of Covid-19 in Hong Kong

Congratulations to the research team recently awarded a RGC Collaborative Research Fund (CRF) Grant of $3.11 million for the project "Hong Kong Insolvency and Restructuring Law and Policy in Times of COVID-19 and Beyond".  The project collects data on the impact of the pandemic on businesses in Hong Kong and considers whether reforms to Hong Kong's laws of insolvency and business restructuring are needed.  It is led by Professor Wai Yee Wan of City University of Hong Kong School of Law and includes Co-Principal Investigators from HKU Law (Mr Alwin Chan and Mr Kelvin Kwok) and City University of Hong Kong, and other collaborators from Oxford University and Leeds University.  This is yet another good example of a collaborative research project between HKU Law and CityU Law.  There are very few law-related projects supported by the CRF fund, so well done to the team and hopefully we will see more CRF collaborations between legal academics in Hong Kong.

Friday, February 7, 2020

Emily Lee & Eric Ip on Judicial Diplomacy in the Asia-Pacific and the Singapore-initiated Transnational Judicial Insolvency Network (J Corp L Studies)

Published online on 9 Jan 2020
Abstract: The promulgation of the Judicial Insolvency Network (JIN) Guidelines by the Supreme Court of Singapore in 2017 has triggered innovative cross-border insolvency developments in the Asia-Pacific. It is intriguing that the Guidelines were conceived not by Singaporean judges alone, but jointly with a transnational network of bankruptcy judges. This article undertakes the original contribution of examining the Guidelines in light of the overall need for participating jurisdictions to craft a transnational insolvency framework. It uses Hong Kong as a test case to illustrate trends of likely future convergence.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

Anselmo Reyes on Cross-Border Insolvency and Shipping Companies (LMCLQ)

"Cross-border insolvency and shipping companies"
Anselmo Reyes
Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly
2016, pp 517-528
Abstract: This article examines the Hong Kong Court of Appeal’s decision in The Convenience Container, where the court refused to set aside in rem writs even though the shipowner company was in liquidation in a foreign jurisdiction. In view of the principle of “modified universalism”, recently endorsed by the English Supreme Court and approved by the Hong Kong Court, the author doubts the correctness of the reasoning in the case and argues that, upon liquidation, the shipowner company ceased to be the beneficial owner of the relevant vessels. Hence, the plaintiffs should not have been allowed to jump the queue of the shipowner’s unsecured creditors by bringing statutory in rem proceedings against the vessel. 


Saturday, December 26, 2015

Maisie Ooi Interviewed on the Yung Kee Cross-Border Winding Up Decision (SCMP)

Jasmine Siu
South China Morning Post
20 December 2015
Hong Kong’s top court recently gave the go-ahead for the parent company of the famous Yung Kee roast goose restaurant in Central to be wound up, despite it being incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.
     The landmark ruling clarified local courts’ jurisdiction over foreign companies. Members of the legal fraternity are expecting more similar cases as the city develops into a dispute resolution hub, but questions are also being raised as to how the order will take effect.
     “This Court of Final Appeal judgment is instrumental to Hong Kong’s development as a dispute resolution centre,” William Wong Ming-fung SC told the Post. “This is very good for Hong Kong.”
     Wong, who specialises in company and insolvency law, said many firms initially incorporated offshore to evade local taxes and conceal identities and assets in tax havens like the BVI...
     Dr Maisie Ooi, a company law professor at the University of Hong Kong, said the judgment is “clearly very important” as it sheds light on a cross-border issue not judicially considered before in Hong Kong and elsewhere.
     “It is an important decision in a world where corporations and their transactions are increasingly crossing jurisdictional borders,” she said. “The Court of Final Appeal has by this decision clearly signalled that Hong Kong courts are prepared to wind up foreign companies in appropriate cases.”
     Ooi said shareholders and their lawyers may look quite keenly to Hong Kong courts to process their petitions. But she wondered how the order can take effect without the cooperation of BVI courts and authorities, when both the company and its sole asset are outside of Hong Kong... Click here to read the full article.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

New Issue: SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series (HKU)

Vol. 5, No. 8: 28 September 2015
Table of Contents
1. Role of the Criminal Law in Maintaining Hong Kong as an International Financial Centre
Simon N. M. Young, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

2. Problems of Judicial Recognition and Enforcement in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters between Hong Kong and Mainland China
Emily Lee, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

3. Sentencing
Simon N. M. Young, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

4. Judicial Review of Elections in Hong Kong: Resolving a Contradiction
Simon N. M. Young, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

5. Rethinking the Process of Political Reform in Hong Kong
Simon N. M. Young, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

6. Mediation in China: Towards a Modernised and Harmonised Framework for International Commercial Mediation
A. K. C. Koo, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

7. Ten Years after Halsey
A. K. C. Koo, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

8. Human Rights, the Rule of Law and Democracy: Recent Experience of Hong Kong and China
Johannes M M Chan, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Emily Lee on Cross-Border Insolvency Matters (Am J of Comp Law)

"Problems of Judicial Recognition and Enforcement in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters Between Hong Kong and Mainland China"
Emily Lee
American Journal of Comparative Law
2015, Vol. 63(2), pp. 439-465
Abstract: This article first explores whether it is legally possible to extend the Arrangement on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Pursuant to Choice of Court Agreements between Parties Concerned to cover cross-border insolvency matters between Hong Kong and mainland China and, if so, the advantages and disadvantages of so doing. It then examines other alternatives for facilitating judicial recognition and enforcement of judgments between the courts in Hong Kong and mainland China that focus specifically on cross-border insolvency judgments (including court orders) that concern both Hong Kong and mainland China, such as signing a new arrangement, a special treaty, or a Memorandum of Understanding. It seeks to highlight the defi- ciencies of the Arrangement as well as discuss the options to remedy those deficiencies. The situation for Hong Kong–China cross-border insolvency cases is opaque due to the lack of local cross-border insolvency legislation in Hong Kong. In China, there is only one article (article 5) of the 2006 Enterprise Bankruptcy Law that concerns cross-border insolvency, but that article is inapplicable to Hong Kong–China cross-border insolvency cases. That article is inapplicable because it applies only to cross-border insolvency cases involving a foreign state. Since Hong Kong is not a foreign state, it is precluded from the article’s application. Also, Hong Kong and China have not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. Although internationally accepted soft law standards such as the Model Law can provide institutional guidance to cross-border insolvency matters, it is compatible with Hong Kong–China cross-border insolvency cases only when a third jurisdiction is involved. The lack of a formal judicial recognition mechanism for Hong Kong-China cross- border insolvency judgments creates problems such as legal uncertainty and forum shopping. This article aims to raise awareness of the difficulties facing practitioners involved in Hong Kong–China cross- border insolvency cases and to share academic perspectives on the issue.  Click here to download the full paper from SSRN.

Friday, June 26, 2015

New Issue: SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series (HKU)

Vol. 5, No. 5: 24 June 2015
Table of Contents

1. Legal Pluralism, Institutionalism, and Judicial Recognition of Hong Kong-China Cross-Border Insolvency Judgments
Emily Lee, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

2. The Evolution of Relational Property Rights: A Case of Chinese Rural Land Reform
Shitong Qiao, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law
Frank K. Upham, New York University School of Law

3. What Determines M&A Legal and Financial Advisors’ Competitiveness in an International Financial Centre: Using China's Going Out Policy as a Natural Experiment
Bryane Michael, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, University of Oxford
Dariusz Wojcik, University of Oxford, St. Peter's College
Douglas W. Arner, University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
Chen Lin, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Business and Economics
Wilson H.S. Tong, Hong Kong Polytechnic University - School of Accounting and Finance, Hong Kong University of Science & Technology (HKUST) - Department of Finance
Simon X. Zhao, The University of Hong Kong - Department of Geography

4. Defaming by Suggestion: Searching for Search Engine Liability in the Autocomplete Era
Anne S. Y. Cheung, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law

5. Trade Finance in East Asia: Potential Responses to the Shortfall
Ross P. Buckley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law
Douglas W. Arner, University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law
Rebecca Stanley, University of New South Wales (UNSW) - Faculty of Law

Sunday, May 17, 2015

New Issue of Hong Kong Law Journal Published (Vol 45, Part 1 of 2015)

ANALYSIS
Public Entertainment and the Interpretive Dilemma in T v Commissioner of Police Po Jen Yap1
Enforcing Contracts for the Benefit of Third Parties: Recent Reform of the Doctrine of Privity Lee Mason13
Lecture
Vicarious Liability on the Move Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers29
ARTICLES
Relevant Lies Janice Brabyn45
Nullity or Merely Lost Priority? The Effect of Failure to Register a Document Concerning Land Malcolm Merry87
Taking Transgender Rights Seriously: A Rights-Based Model of Gender Recognition in Hong Kong Kai Yeung Wong109
Interests of Youth Suspects are at Risk: Implementing the Right to the Presence of Parent or Guardian and the Right to Legal Assistance at the Police Stations in the Case of Youth Suspects in Hong KongShum Ka Ching, Kelly127
REVIEW ARTICLE
A New Turning Point in the Study of International Legal Compliance, in China and Elsewhere Roda Mushkat157
Focus: Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement
Introduction Brian Christopher Jones189
Confrontational Contestation and Democratic Compromise: The Sunflower Movement and its AftermathBrian Christopher Jones and Yen Tu Su193
Searching for Constitutional Authority in the Sunflower Movement Chia Ming Chen211
Policing an Occupied Legislature: Symbolic Struggle over the Police Image in Taiwan’s Sunflower Movemen Jeffrey T Martin229
Connecting Gender and Trade: Gender Framing in the Anti-Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement Movement Hsiaowei Kuan249
Dance with the Dragon: Closer Economic Integration with China and Deteriorating Democracy and Rule of Law in Taiwan and Hong Kong? Chien Huei Wu275
Peaceful but “Illegal” Assemblies? – Comparisons between Taiwan’s Constitution and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Wen Chen Chang295
Marching Towards Civic Constitutionalism with Sunflowers Jiunn rong Yeh315
CHINA LAW
Legal Pluralism, Institutionalism and Judicial Recognition of Hong Kong–China Cross-Border Insolvency Judgments Emily Lee331
Declining Jurisdiction by Forum Non Conveniens in Chinese Courts Zheng Sophia Tang351
BOOK REVIEWS
Hong Kong Media Law: A Guide for Journalists and Media Professionals: Expanded Second Edition, Doreen Weisenhaus, with contributions by Rick Glofcheski and Yan Mei Ning Danny Gitting373

Saturday, May 16, 2015

Michael Ng on the Transplantation of English Bankruptcy Law Into Early Colonial Hong Kong

"Dirt of whitewashing: re-conceptualising debtors’ obligations in Chinese business by transplanting bankruptcy law to early British Hong Kong (1860s–1880s)"
Business History
13 May 2015, pp 1-29
Abstract: This article, drawing on a wide range of archived materials, and using one of the earliest sets of English business law imported to Hong Kong – the Bankruptcy Ordinance of 1864 – as a case study, argues that the transplantation of the English bankruptcy regime into early colonial Hong Kong was contrary to the business interests of both the European and Chinese communities and wrongfully displaced the traditional Chinese business norms and practices that had contributed to the health of the colonial economy prior to the regime's introduction. This article constitutes one of the first empirical studies to place English business law and its widely acknowledged contribution to the economy of early colonial Hong Kong under scrutiny. From the perspective of the relationship between English law and former British colonies’ development of business modernity, the findings presented herein contradict the readily accepted notion that English business law provided a solid legal infrastructure upon which colonial Hong Kong's prosperity and economic growth were built and call for more nuanced studies of the positive role of Chinese legal traditions in Hong Kong's development of business modernity in its early colonial period.  Click here to download the full article.

Friday, April 3, 2015

Emily Lee on the Complexities of Cross-Border Insolvencies: Hong Kong-China

Emily Lee
The Journal of Comparative Law
Vol. 9(2), 2014-2015, pp 259-280
Abstract: The focus of this article is on cross-border insolvency (CBI) cases, particularly those across the border of Hong Kong and China (the Hong Kong-China CBI cases). CBI cases can initiate from the filing of a petition by a foreign party (eg the creditors of the debtor company in Hong Kong) against a local party (represented by the debtor company or its director(s) or liquidator(s) in China), or vice versa. The foreign party (in Hong Kong) may be required by the local courts (in China) to file suit against the local party for it to access the assets belonging to or shared by the local party. On the other hand, there may already be rulings made by the foreign courts against the local party. In such a situation, to gain recognition (of the foreign rulings) by the local courts — which can give orders for the foreign party (or the liquidators appointed by them) to access the local party’s assets within their jurisdiction — the foreign party must seek to rely on bilateral recognition treaties (signed by governments of the nations of both parties, foreign and local) or on the traditional legal principle of comity (ie reciprocity, a philosophy for mutual benefit). The situation for HK-China CBI cases is opaque due to the lack of local cross-border legislation in Hong Kong. In China, there is only one article (Article 5) of the 2006 Enterprise Bankruptcy Law that concerns cross-border insolvency, yet the article is rarely invoked by the Chinese courts. It is important to note here that neither Hong Kong nor China has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. Furthermore, the border between the HKSAR and mainland China is not a border as is usually understood in the context of the Model Law. In the context of the Model Law, the term ‘foreign’ is used to describe a collective judicial or administrative proceeding in a ‘foreign State’, which intrinsically excludes Hong Kong due to its status as a special administrative region within its sovereign, China. As such, it is important to note that, although internationally accepted soft law standards such as the Model Law provides institutional guidance to CBI matters, it is not entirely compatible with HK-China CBI cases, unless and until those matters involve a third jurisdiction; and that third jurisdiction is typically a tax haven jurisdiction, as those exemplary cases illustrated in this article.  Click here to download the full article.

Sunday, March 29, 2015

New Issue: SSRN Legal Studies Research Paper Series (HKU)

Vol. 5, No. 2: 25 March 2015

1. Federalism and Democratic Reform in China with Lessons from India 
Michael C. Davis, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law 

2. Basel III and Its New Capital Requirements, as Distinguished from Basel II 
Emily Lee, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law 

3. The Institutional Fragmentation of International Intellectual Property Law in Pacific Rim: Authority and Legitimacy, Regime Interaction and Future Institutional Development in a 'World Society' 
Anlei Zuo, The University of Hong Kong, Faculty of Law, Students 

4. Securities & Futures Commission v China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited: Regional Conflict of Laws, Judicial Recognition and Hong Kong-China Cross-Border Insolvencies 
Emily Lee, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law 

5. The New Hong Kong Competition Law: Anomalies and Challenges 
Kelvin H. Kwok, The University of Hong Kong - Faculty of Law 

6. A Theory of Financial Services Competition, Compliance and Regulation 
Bryane Michael, University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law, University of Oxford 
Joseph Falzon, Department of Banking & Finance - University of Malta 
Ajay Shamdasani, Thomson Reuters


Thursday, February 12, 2015

Emily Lee on Regional Conflict of Laws and Hong Kong-China Insolvencies

in JP Sarra & B Romaine (eds), Annual Review of Insolvency Law 2014
(Toronto: Carswell, 2015), pp 599-623
Abstract: Using the recently adjudicated landmark case in Hong Kong of Securities and Futures Commission v China Metal Recycling (Holdings) Limited as a launching board this article discusses and analyzes the complexities surrounding cross-border (corporate) insolvencies (“CBIs”) between Hong Kong and mainland China (HK-China CBI). Going forward, HK-China CBI will have a direct bearing on decisions made by Hong Kong and Chinese courts; since they are already increasingly requested to adjudicate on the same issues during a corporate insolvency, a new mechanism is called for in order to provide a practical and economically viable resolution to the regional conflict of laws issue arising from Hong Kong and mainland China having different insolvency laws in spite of Hong Kong being a part of mainland China, although a special administrative region within it. A new mechanism should focus on the judicial recognition of judgments and court orders concerning insolvencies of companies with establishments in both Hong Kong and mainland China; and if a new mechanism is properly implemented, it can more effectively and holistically facilitate resolution of the regional conflict of laws issue that typically arise during the insolvency procedure of a Hong Kong-listed company with subsidiary companies located in mainland China. Without such a mechanism in place, the provisional liquidators appointed in Hong Kong will need to devise a more convoluted resolution method in order for them to be approved by the Chinese court before they can take control of the Chinese subsidiary companies. Moreover, without a new mechanism, there will be duplication of insolvency procedures and costs and there may be incentives for forum shopping.  Click here to download the chapter.

Saturday, November 8, 2014

New Book: Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance

Sweet & Maxwell
December 2014
Editors: Antonio Da Roza and Kevin Tang
Description: The new Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) came into effect on 3 March 2014. While Cap. 32 has not been completely repealed except those provisions relating to winding-up and insolvency of companies and prospectuses. The Cap. 32 has now been re-titled as “Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance”. This title is a must-have publication to examine each and every section of the remaining law, highlighting the key changes incorporated and amended as a result of the enactment of the new Companies Ordinance. The main focus of this Companies (Winding-Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance: Commentary and Annotations including: 1. Prospectives of Companies registered here in Hong Kong; 2. Winding-Up of a Company; 3. Insolvency of a Company; 4. Director duties of care and disqualification; 5. Appointment of receivers and managers of insolvent companies; 6. Restrictions on the sale of shares; 7. Restrictions on the offers of shares for sale; 8. Prevention of evasion of the societies; and 9. For any other incidental and connected matters. Notable highlights for these commentary & annotations are: • Insightful commentary and annotations of all those 244 Sections of Cap. 32 which remain in force; • Select list of specified forms for use under Cap 32 regarding the Winding-Up and Insolvency of a Company; and • Briefing and consultation notes on the recommended improvements to the clarity and application of the Corporate insolvency and Winding-Up provisions.