There was general agreement that the sale or transfer of assets
of an insolvent corporate can be dealt with in a rather efficient
manner. Several bankers applauded the lack of any prohibition on
foreign ownership. However, among the matters that need to be addressed
are the following:
(1) The complexity of the Transfer of Business (Protection of
Creditors) Ordinance (cap 49), which is intended to protect unsecured
creditors of a business that is transferred by setting forth under
what conditions a transferee may be liable for the creditors'
debts existing at the time of the transfer of the business.
A recent submission by the Hong Kong Society of Accountants
is telling:
In Hong Kong, China, the Transfer of Business (Protection of Creditors)
Ordinance provides protection to unsecured creditors of a business
on the transfer of that business by creating a liability in
the hands of the transferee for all the debts incurred by the
transferor in carrying on the business.
While we recognise that there needs to be some sort of protection
and recourse for the creditors when businesses are transferred,
we have found the legislation to be quite unusable due to the
lack of clarity in the provisions and absence of case law.
We note that there is no similar legislation in Australia or
in the United Kingdom, and that the legislation is unique to
Hong Kong, China. The legislation also appears to be quite in-operative.
We cannot recall the law having ever been tested in court nor
can we provide any relevant authoritative cases thereon. We
surmise that due to the significant uncertainties contained
in the legislation, most people would try to avoid using it.
. . .
Consultation Paper on the Winding Up Provisions of the Companies
Ordinance, supra, para 27.4 at 189.
(2) Resolving the claims of workers that arise under the Protection
of Wages on Insolvency Fund Ordinance; and
(3) The practical problems and difficulties that can arise in
regard to the transfer of interests in real property (eg, involving
tenants or landlords).