DOCSLIB.ORG

The New Cross-Border Arrangement Between Hong Kong and Mainland

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The New Cross-Border Arrangement Between Hong Kong and Mainland Client Alert The New Cross-Border Arrangement Between Hong Contact Information Kong and Mainland China on Insolvency and If you have any questions concerning this update, Restructuring Matters – A Comparison with please contact: Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code Naomi Moore May 31, 2021 Partner [email protected] On May 14, 2021, the Department of Justice of the government of the Hong Kong Hong Kong +852 3694.3050 Special Administrative Region announced that the Secretary for Justice of Hong Kong and the Vice-president of the Supreme People’s Court (the “SPC”) had signed the Abid Qureshi Record of Meeting on Mutual Recognition of and Assistance to Bankruptcy Partner (Insolvency) Proceedings between the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong [email protected] Special Administrative Region (the “ROM”). The ROM concerns the commencement New York and implementation of the much anticipated cross-border mutual recognition, +1 212.872.8027 assistance and cooperation arrangement between Hong Kong and mainland China (the “Mainland”) in relation to corporate insolvency and restructuring matters (the Liz Osborne Partner “Cooperation Arrangement”). [email protected] To give effect to this milestone agreement, on the same day the SPC issued The London +44 20.7661.5347 Supreme People’s Court’s Opinion on Taking Forward a Pilot Measure in relation to the Recognition of and Assistance to Insolvency Proceedings in the Hong Kong Daniel Cohen Special Administrative Region (the “SPC Opinion”) and the Hong Kong government Partner issued a Practical Guide setting out the procedure for a Mainland administrator’s [email protected] application to the Courts of Hong Kong for recognition and assistance (the “Guide”). Hong Kong +852 3694.3032 The Cooperation Arrangement will initially be implemented as a pilot program by the people’s courts in Shanghai Municipality, Xiamen Municipality in Fujian Province and Jeremy Haywood Shenzhen Municipality in Guangdong Province (together the “Pilot Courts”) given their Counsel close financial and business connections with Hong Kong. It is anticipated that other [email protected] Mainland courts will be added to the arrangement in the future if the pilot program is Hong Kong +852 3694.3019 successful. This is a groundbreaking development as it is the first time that either the Mainland or Jingli Jiang Hong Kong has entered into a cooperation framework with any other jurisdiction in Counsel [email protected] respect of cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters. The true implications of Beijing this development for creditors and market participants in Hong Kong-China +86 10.8567.2229 restructuring and insolvency matters will, however, only become clear once the first 1 test cases begin to emerge and we see how the Cooperation Arrangement is applied in practice. While we await further clarification and guidance from those cases, we highlight in this article the key features of the Cooperation Arrangement and consider how it compares to the recognition and assistance mechanisms available under chapter 15 of the United States (“U.S.”) Bankruptcy Code (“chapter 15”), which was enacted following the adoption by the U.S. of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency (the “Model Law”) in 2005. The Model Law is a framework for dealing with cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters that has so far been adopted in 49 States in a total of 53 jurisdictions around the world1. Finally, we consider the potential ramifications of the Cooperation Arrangement for offshore creditors and insolvency officeholders in Hong Kong. Although the Cooperation Arrangement does have some limitations relative to chapter 15, it is an important and positive development for the Hong Kong-China insolvency and restructuring landscape and will give Hong Kong insolvency officeholders an advantage in Chinese group failures that have a sufficient nexus to Hong Kong and one or more of the Pilot Court jurisdictions. Recognition of Mainland Insolvency Proceedings in Hong Kong Hong Kong has not adopted the Model Law, nor does it have any statutory mechanism to deal with cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters. Instead, the Hong Kong courts have, over the years, developed and refined a common law framework for addressing such issues. An overview of the relevant common law principles can be found in our recent Client Alert. These common law principles have already been successfully applied on at least two occasions to recognize Mainland insolvency proceedings, in the decisions of Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited2 and Shenzhen Everich Supply Chain Co, Ltd3. The ROM and the Guide contemplate that the recognition of Mainland insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong will continue to be dealt with under the existing common law framework in Hong Kong. The procedure for seeking recognition of a Mainland insolvency proceeding will continue to involve the issuance of a letter of request by a Mainland court addressed to the Hong Kong Companies Court for the purpose of seeking recognition and assistance, usually on terms that reflect the Hong Kong Companies Court standard order (unless there is a good reason to deviate from those terms in a particular case). Under the Cooperation Arrangement, the Hong Kong Companies Court may grant (i) recognition of bankruptcy liquidation, reorganization and compromise proceedings under the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People’s Republic of China (the “EBL”); (ii) recognition of a Mainland bankruptcy administrator’s office as an administrator; and (iii) assistance with the discharge of the bankruptcy administrator’s duties as an administrator. Recognition of Hong Kong Insolvency Proceedings in the Mainland Since 2007, the Mainland has had a statutory mechanism available to deal with cross- border insolvency matters in the form of Article 5 of the EBL. This gives the Mainland © 2021 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 2 courts discretion to recognize and enforce judgments or rulings in foreign bankruptcy cases according to international treaties or on the basis of the principle of reciprocity. Recognition and enforcement on this basis is subject to the proviso that the judgment or ruling does not violate the basic principles of Mainland law, does not jeopardize the sovereignty and security of the state or public interests and does not undermine the legitimate rights and interests of creditors in the Mainland. The Mainland has not signed any international treaties with other jurisdictions in respect of cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters (other than the recent Cooperation Arrangement with Hong Kong) and, to date, Article 5 has had very limited utility in practice, notwithstanding that Mainland bankruptcy proceedings have been granted recognition in a small number of cases in foreign jurisdictions. Unlike Hong Kong, the Mainland does not have a common law system, and its courts are not formally bound by rigid precedent as they are in Hong Kong. Consequently, a different approach was required for a recognition and assistance regime to operate effectively in the Mainland compared with the common law precedent-based approach in Hong Kong. Although the Mainland has not adopted the Model Law, certain features of the Mainland recognition and assistance regime as contemplated by the Cooperation Arrangement have been influenced by the Model Law, although, as we highlight below, it deviates from the Model Law in a number of significant respects. A Comparison of Chapter 15 and the Cooperation Arrangement in the Mainland The high-level comparison table below illustrates the key similarities and differences between chapter 15 in the U.S. (which enacted the Model Law without any material deviations) and the Mainland recognition and assistance regime under the Cooperation Arrangement (according to the terms of the SPC Opinion): Chapter 15 Cooperation Arrangement Proceedings that “Foreign proceedings,” being Hong Kong collective can be recognized judicial or administrative insolvency proceedings, proceedings in a foreign including: country under a law relating to Compulsory winding up insolvency or adjustment of Creditors’ voluntary debt in which the debtor’s winding up assets and affairs are subject Schemes of arrangement to control or supervision by a for restructuring debt, foreign court for the purpose of promoted by a liquidator or reorganization or liquidation. provisional liquidator and sanctioned by the Hong Kong court. Representatives “Foreign representative,” being A liquidator or provisional that can be a person or entity authorized liquidator appointed by the recognized in the foreign proceeding to Hong Kong court. © 2021 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP 3 Chapter 15 Cooperation Arrangement administer the reorganization or liquidation of the debtor’s assets or affairs or to act as a representative of such foreign proceeding. Jurisdiction Debtor has its: Debtor has its: center of main interests COMI in Hong Kong. (“COMI”) or Principal assets, a place of an establishment (being a business or a place where the debtor representative office in carries out non-transitory Shenzhen, Shanghai or economic activity) Xiamen. in the place where the foreign proceedings sought to be recognized have been commenced. Date at which COMI The date of the filing of the At least six months prior to the is determined chapter 15 petition, although a commencement of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Brexit: a Unique Irish Opportunity for Cross-Border Restructuring? 14.02.2019
    briefing Brexit: a Unique Irish Opportunity for Cross-Border Restructuring? 14.02.2019 Certainty is a key element in any business planning. For corporate restructuring practitioners who are planning or working on cross border transactions, the uncertainty relating to Brexit and the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”) may have long-term significant consequences and a “no-deal” Brexit (without a withdrawal agreement and the certainty of a transition period) will have immediate and significant consequences for any such cross-border transaction. In this context, Irish law and the Irish Courts can provide practical and effective solutions to assist corporates (and their advisors) restructure their business and affairs in a straight-forward and easily understood manner. It is also an opportunity for the Irish legal system to demonstrate its value to international practitioners. This opportunity was also recognised in a recent proposal document to the Irish Government produced by the Law Society of Ireland and the Bar Council of Ireland entitled “Promoting Ireland as a leading centre globally for international legal services” (the “Report”). In the context of the UK’s exit from the EU, the Report states that “we foresee a meaningful role for Irish law in certain areas and industry sectors allied with the provision of a greater range of legal services in Ireland for the benefit of international and Irish business. In a number of sectors, we believe that Ireland as a location and the Irish law and the Irish Courts are and can be advantageous contractual choices for international clients (now or in the future)”.
    [Show full text]
  • Irish Examinership: Post-Eircom a Look at Ireland's Fastest and Largest
    A look at Ireland’s fastest and largest restructuring through examinership and the implications for the process Irish examinership: post-eircom A look at Ireland’s fastest and largest restructuring through examinership and the implications for the process* David Baxter Tanya Sheridan A&L Goodbody, Dublin A&L Goodbody [email protected] The Irish telecommunications company eircom recently successfully concluded its restructuring through the Irish examinership process. This examinership is both the largest in terms of the overall quantum of debt that was restructured and also the largest successful restructuring through examinership in Ireland to date. The speed with which the restructuring of this strategically important company was concluded was due in large part to the degree of pre-negotiation between the company and its lenders before the process commenced. The eircom examinership demonstrated the degree to which an element of pre-negotiation can compliment the process. The advantages of the process, having been highlighted through the eircom examinership, might attract distressed companies from other EU jurisdictions to undertake a COMI shift to Ireland in order to avail of this process. he eircom examinership was notable for both the Irish High Court just 54 days after the companies Tsize of this debt restructuring and the speed in entered examinership. which the process was successfully concluded. In all, This restructuring also demonstrates the advantages €1.4bn of a total debt of approximately €4bn was of examinership as a ‘one-stop shop’: a flexible process written off the balance sheets of the eircom operating that allows for both the write-off of debt and the change companies.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore's New “Supercharged” Scheme of Arrangement
    KEY POINTS Feature Singapore’s new regime combines elements of the US Ch 11 process with the traditional creditor scheme of arrangement. Companies may apply for a broad moratorium that can apply to acts outside of Singapore. Moratoriums can also be granted in respect of certain related companies. There is a (cross-class) cram down mechanic in respect of unsecured debt, but its effectiveness in practice is uncertain. The changes include introduction of a “pre-packaged scheme” which bypasses the requirement for scheme meetings, where it can be demonstrated the outcome is a foregone conclusion. It remains to be seen the extent to which foreign courts will recognise and give effect to a Singapore scheme. Authors Paul Apáthy and Emmanuel Chua Singapore’s new “supercharged” scheme of arrangement In this article, the authors consider aspects of Singapore’s new “supercharged” these new provisions are based on concepts scheme of arrangement procedure and its potential use in cross border restructurings. found in Ch 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. By adopting these concepts, Singapore is seeking to create a new regime that incorporates INTRODUCTION Central to the reforms is the the “best of both worlds” of the scheme of SINGAPORE’S NEW“SUPERCHARGED” SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT Singapore is seeking to become an augmentation of the scheme of arrangement arrangement and Ch 11 procedures. ■international debt restructuring hub, process with a number of new provisions, akin to London or New York. This aspiration some of which were adopted from the United APPLICABILITY OF SINGAPORE is unambiguously conveyed in the title of the States Bankruptcy Code (the Bankruptcy SCHEMES TO FOREIGN COMPANIES ‘Report of the Committee to Strengthen Code).
    [Show full text]
  • The Scheme of Arrangement: a Viable Option for Nigerian Companies In
    EMERGING MARKETS RESTRUCTURING JOURNAL ISSUE NO. 1 — SPRING 2016 The Scheme of Arrangement: A Viable Option for Nigerian Companies in a Downturn? By DIPO OKURIBIDO In Nigeria, large corporate bankruptcies are a rarity, and available literature on the subject tends to deal more with theory and provisions of existing law than with actual precedents and examples of lenders seeking liquidation, or to otherwise enforce security. Reasons abound for this situation, but perhaps the most striking of these is the fact that existing corporate insolvency legislation generally focuses on the actual liquidation of the insolvent company, as opposed to establishing buffers or moratoriums to create opportunities for its turnaround or rescue. The result of the limited insolvency regime is that Nigerian law establish a process for a Nigerian company to enter into a companies simply do not surrender to bankruptcy proceedings compromise or arrangement with its creditors or shareholders until there is clearly and absolutely no hope of survival. Up to (or any class of either of them). that point, in the gap between limping and dying, the tool of choice has been the Scheme of Arrangement. Under the rules contained in the Principal Companies Legislation1 (and supplemented in recent iterations of the The Nigerian Scheme of Arrangement Securities and Exchange Commission Rules and Regulations2), a public company would need to file an application for the The Nigerian Scheme of Arrangement is loosely based on the proposed scheme with the Nigerian Securities and Exchange UK Scheme of Arrangement. Similarly with its source material, Commission (“SEC”) and, following the SEC’s approval of the the Scheme of Arrangement provisions under Nigerian scheme, would then need to make an application to the Federal 26 EMERGING MARKETS RESTRUCTURING JOURNAL ISSUE NO.
    [Show full text]
  • Schemes of Arrangement As Restructuring Tools
    Schemes of Arrangement as Restructuring Tools Since the start of the current credit crunch there has been a huge increase in the use of schemes as a restructuring tool. In most cases a scheme will be the fall-back strategy for use in cases where consensual changes to creditors’ and/ or shareholders’ rights under finance documents cannot be negotiated. Often the need for a scheme will fall away, but the prospect of a scheme will have helped deliver the consensus. So as well as those schemes that see their way through to implementation, there are many draft schemes in the marketplace. The purpose of this client note is to provide an overview of the use of schemes as a creditor restructuring tool and to highlight some of the key practice points. 1 What is a scheme? constituencies. The dominant driver of the creditor negotiations will usually be the A scheme of arrangement is a very flexible and creditor(s) who hold security and/or enjoy a long-established Companies Act procedure priority in repayment on an enforcement at the which can be used to vary the rights of some or point at which the value of the business breaks all of a company’s creditors and/or shareholders. (known as the fulcrum). That said, the question As long as a scheme receives the support of the of the value of a business will invariably be a statutory majorities of each class of creditor contentious point between the various stake- and/or shareholder whose rights are affected by holders in a restructuring and the value of the it, and the court sanctions it, the scheme will be business is in any event likely to move during binding on all creditors and/or shareholders, the course of restructuring negotiations as the including those within each class voting against business continues its operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Schemes of Arrangement
    Schemes of arrangement a special supplement to www.runoffbusiness.com PricewaterhouseCoopers PricewaterhouseCoopers (www.pwc.com) is the world’s largest professional services organisation. Drawing on the knowledge and skills of more than 125,000 people in 142 countries, we build relationships by providing services based on quality and integrity. The following areas of the firm have contributed to this supplement: Solutions for Discontinued Actuarial & Insurance Insurance Business Management Solutions PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Solutions for Discontinued PricewaterhouseCoopers’ Actuarial & Insurance Insurance Business team comprises 140 insurance Management Solutions (AIMS) practice is a global experts dedicated to dealing with issues facing practice of more than 450 consultants, providing life and discontinued insurance business. The team has an non-life actuarial and insurance advisory services. With a extensive range of specialists with expertise in proven track record across five continents and practices restructuring. in 14 countries, AIMS offers the global presence, resources and expertise to meet its clients’ most critical They include qualified chartered insurance practitioners, needs. Our actuaries regularly provide advice to both the accountants, restructuring practitioners and specialists insurance industry and broader financial services in risk management, treasury and business providers. management. As part of the world’s largest professional services firm, This team has a broad range of experience, including AIMS can also call on the global expertise of auditors, board level strategic management, claims run-off tax advisers, corporate finance and discontinued management, collections, underwriting, risk insurance business specialists who specialise in the management, investigations and finance. insurance sector. The team can also draw on the strength of offices Our non-life practice is the UK’s largest practice of its around the world including dedicated staff in the US and kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Schemes of Arrangement As Restructuring Tools
    Schemes of Arrangement as Restructuring Tools Since the start of the current credit crunch there has been a huge increase in the use of schemes as a restructuring tool. In most cases a scheme will be the fall-back strategy for use in cases where consensual changes to creditors’ and/ or shareholders’ rights under finance documents cannot be negotiated. Often the need for a scheme will fall away, but the prospect of a scheme will have helped deliver the consensus. So as well as those schemes that see their way through to implementation, there are many draft schemes in the marketplace. The purpose of this client note is to provide an overview of the use of schemes as a creditor restructuring tool and to highlight some of the key practice points. Timeline Over time, the English courts have become increasingly willing to accept companies’ innovative arguments regarding the establishment of a “sufficient connection” with England for the purposes of a Scheme. German company English governing English governing English governing Dutch company law and exclusive German governing law and exclusive law and exclusive jurisdiction New York governing law, amended to jurisdiction jurisdiction law and non- English law No UK lenders and Mostly UK lenders Mostly UK lenders exclusive jurisdiction no other connection No COMI shift to the UK establishments Some UK customers with England COMI shift to the UK UK 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 1 What is a scheme? 2 Who can use a scheme? A scheme of arrangement is a very flexible and Schemes need to be implemented in accordance long-established Companies Act procedure with the Companies Act 2006 and involve two court applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring Tools in the United Kingdom and in Spain
    RESTRUCTURING TOOLS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND IN SPAIN Carmen Alonso and Hugo Bowkett Lawyers at LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 1 [email protected] Revista General de Insolvencias & Reestructuraciones / Journal of Insolvency & Restructuring 2 / 2021 ABSTRACT: Comparative analysis of the restructuring tools available for Spanish companies to restructure its debt under the laws of both England and the Kingdom of Spain, focusing on the English scheme of arrangement, the restructuring plan and the Spanish homologation of a refinancing agreement (homologación judicial de un acu- erdo de financiación). KEYWORDS: restructuring, Brexit, scheme of arrangement, restructuring plan, homologation, centre of main interest, insolvency, creditors, challenges. TABLE OF CONTENTS: I. INTRODUCTION. II. RESTRUCTURING TOOLS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. 1. SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. 1.1. Main features. 1.2. General process. 1.3. Key considerations. 1.4. Application of scheme of arrangements by Spanish companies. 2. RESTRUCTURING PLAN. 2.1. Main features. 2.2. Com- parison with the English scheme of arrangement. III. DIFFERENCES OF UK RE- STRUCTURING TOOLS VERSUS SPANISH HOMOLOGATION. IV. CONCLUSIONS. V. REFERENCES. I. INTRODUCTION This article analyses restructuring tools available for Spanish companies in order to restructure their debt under the laws of both England and the Kingdom of Spain. In particular, this article sets out the following matters: (a) first, the main features of the English law scheme of arrangement and its use by Spanish companies so far; (b) second, the main features of the English law restructuring plan which came into force in 2020 and how this differs from a scheme of arrangement; and (c) third, a comparison between the English law scheme of arrangement and restructuring plan processes and the Span- ish homologation (homologación judicial de acuerdos de refinanciación) (“Ho- mologation”).
    [Show full text]
  • NOTICE of NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CONVENED MEETING of the SHAREHOLDERS of IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Day Tuesday Date March
    1 IBM India Private Limited No.12, Subramanya Arcade Bannerghatta Main Road Bangalore - 560029, India www.ibm.com/in NOTICE OF NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL CONVENED MEETING OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF IBM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Day Tuesday Date March 16, 2021 Time 11:00 AM IST to 11:30 AM IST Place Hilton Bangalore Embassy Golflinks, Embassy Golf Links Business Park, Off Intermediate Ring Road, Bengaluru – 560071 Sr. Contents Page No No. 1 Notice of the National Company Law Tribunal convened meeting of the shareholders of IBM India Private Limited under the 2-4 provisions of Sections 230 – 232 of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Companies (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 2 Explanatory statement under Section 230(3) and 232(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 read with Rule 6 of the Companies 5-17 (Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations) Rules, 2016 3 Annexure 1: Scheme of Arrangement between IBM India Private Limited and Grand Ocean Managed Infrastructure Services Private 18-45 Limited 4 Annexure 2: Share Entitlement Report dated January 13, 2021 issued by D and P India Advisory Services LLP 46-60 5 Annexure 3: Report adopted by the Board of Directors of IBM India Private Limited pursuant to the provisions of Section 61-63 232(2)(c) of the Companies Act, 2013 6 Annexure 4: Supplementary unaudited accounting statement of IBM India Private Limited for the six months period ended on 64-94 September 30, 2020 7 Proxy Form 95-96 8 Attendance Slip 97 9 Route map for the venue of the meeting 98 Registered Office: No.
    [Show full text]
  • Restructuring and Insolvency Regimes in South East Asia
    © Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP 1 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 3 PART I – Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Philippines and Vietnam 4 PART II – Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore 16 KEY CONTACTS 24 OUR REGIONAL OFFICES 25 DISCLAIMER 26 INTRODUCTION As business and commerce becomes increasingly cross-border in nature, it is important for businesses to have knowledge of restructuring and insolvency regimes of foreign jurisdictions. This is particularly relevant in the Southeast Asia region, given the close connection and links amongst the Southeast Asian states. In this publication, we take a broad look at the key areas of interest in the restructuring and insolvency regimes across the region. The comparative overview covers various differences and similarities in the respective restructuring and insolvency frameworks in these jurisdictions. Rajah & Tann Asia, as a regional network of law firms, has an established presence across Southeast Asia. Our regional offices have the requisite restructuring and insolvency expertise to assist with your queries and restructuring and insolvency needs across these jurisdictions. This publication is up to date as of September 2020. © Rajah & Tann Asia 3 PART I – Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Philippines and Vietnam Areas Cambodia Laos Myanmar Philippines Vietnam Rehabilitation A plan of compromise Upon the Court Rehabilitation Court-supervised Court-convened and can be proposed by accepting the petition process can be voluntary rehabilitation Creditors’ Meeting Restructuring the debtor, the or request for initiated (i) voluntarily (court administration). (court administration). Regime administrator or a adjudication and by the company; (ii) creditor (court declaration of by a secured creditor Court-supervised administration). bankruptcy, the debtor who holds security involuntary may apply for Court over all or majority of rehabilitation (court A plan of compromise sanctioned mediation.
    [Show full text]
  • English Schemes of Arrangement: Points to Note from a Recent Example
    ALERT MEMORANDUM English Schemes of Arrangement: Points to Note From a Recent Example March 5, 2018 If you have any questions concerning this memorandum, please reach out to your regular firm contact or the Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP recently following authors represented Far-Eastern Shipping Company plc, a LONDON public company incorporated in Russia, and certain of Andrew Shutter +44 207 614 2273 its affiliates in their restructuring of over USD 1 billion [email protected] of debt. Part of the restructuring involved the Polina Lyadnova negotiation of a compromise arrangement with certain +44 207 614 2355 [email protected] noteholders under two series of EU listed U.S. dollar- Bree Morgan-Davies denominated Eurobonds with trust deeds governed by +44 207 614 2223 English law. The compromise was implemented by way [email protected] of an English law scheme of arrangement which was Alessandro S. Forzani +44 207 614 2291 convened with the permission of the High Court of [email protected] Justice in October 2017 and sanctioned in November 2017. This memorandum provides an insight on a number of issues that were explored at the convening and sanction hearings. Of particular note was the court’s consideration of the interplay between the EU Judgments Regulation and EU Insolvency Regulation. clearygottlieb.com © Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, 2018. All rights reserved. This memorandum was prepared as a service to clients and other friends of Cleary Gottlieb to report on recent developments that may be of interest to them. The information in it is therefore general, and should not be considered or relied on as legal advice.
    [Show full text]
  • Companies Act, 2013
    COMPANIES ACT, 2013 CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING & INSOLVENCY BACKGROUNDER CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING & INSOLVENCY SECTION –I COMPROMISE ARRANGEMENT AND MERGERS INTRODUCTION Chapter XV (Section 230 to 240) of Companies Act, 2013(the Act) contains provisions on ‘Compromises, Arrangements and Amalgamations’, that covers compromise or arrangements, mergers and amalgamations, Corporate Debt Restructuring, demergers, fast track mergers for small companies/holding subsidiary companies, cross border mergers, takeovers, amalgamation of companies in public interest etc.,. The procedural aspects involved such as format of application to be made to National Company Law Tribunal (the Tribunal), form of notice and the procedural aspects involved with respect to the substantive law are covered under the Rules made under Chapter XV of the Act. The scheme of Chapter XV goes as follows. 1. Section 230-231 deals with compromise or arrangements. 2. Section 232 deals with mergers and amalgamation including demergers. 3. Section 233 deals with amalgamation of small companies (also called fast track mergers) 4. Section 234 deals with amalgamation with foreign company (also called cross border mergers) 5. Section 235 deals acquisition of shares of dissenting shareholders. 6. Section 236 deals with purchase of minority shareholding. 7. Section 237 deals with power of central government to provide for amalgamation of companies in public interest. 8. Section 238 deals with registration of offer of schemes involving transfer of shares. 1 2 Corporate Restructuring & Insolvency
    [Show full text]