These obiter dicta  comments are entirely correct as to the necessity of a parallel scheme where there is no or marginal risk of dissentient creditor action. Unnecessary duplicative proceedings are to be avoided in favour of pragmatism as to assessing the risk of creditor support. This assessment changes over time as support is garnered by the restructuring professionals. Mr Justice Jonathan Harris noted that: “In future, I will need to be satisfied by any company or provisional liquidators who propose that parallel schemes are introduced that it is in the genuine best interests of unsecured creditors, that a scheme is introduced in the Company’s place of incorporation”. This is the correct starting point. It was further noted that by reason of the rule in Gibbs, any Hong Kong law debt compromised through a Hong Kong Court scheme of arrangement would be recognised by a common law Court.

The decision is a timely reminder of the need for the restructuring culture to change to maximize returns for stakeholders echoing analogous comments in the Cayman Islands decision of China Resources  and the Hong Kong decision of China Bozza.