This note updates a series of Tanner De Witt articles on the interaction between dispute resolution clauses and the Court’s insolvency jurisdiction. The previous articles are:
Introduction
Harbour Front Limited v The Official Receiver and Trustee of the Property of Leung Yat Tung [2024] HKCFI 1203 provides an interesting illustration of how the ‘prevention principle’ may be applied in an unusual scenario of a claim for contractual interests under a settlement agreement. Whilst contractual provisions are unlikely to provide for any express constraint on a claim for contractual interests, the judgment offers valuable insight into how such a claim may nonetheless be subject to limitation.
The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.
Can a creditor obtain a winding up order against a debtor company if the underlying dispute over the debt is subject to an arbitration agreement between the parties?
前言
2024年4月8日，世茂集团控股有限公司（股份代号00813.HK，“世茂集团”）在港交所披露，中国建设银行（亚洲）股份有限公司于2024年4月5日向香港特别行政区高等法院（“香港高等法院”）提出对世茂集团的清盘呈请，涉及金额15.795亿港元。世茂集团极力反对该呈请，提出将继续推进境外债务重组，并于4月10日发布有关清盘呈请的进一步公告称，高等法院已将该呈请的首次聆讯日定为2024年6月26日，呈请人提交清盘呈请并不代表能成功进行清盘。
而在2024年1月29日，香港高等法院对中国恒大集团（股份代号03333.HK，“中国恒大”）正式作出公司清盘令并委任共同及各别清盘人。2024年3月22日，中国恒大发布自愿性公告，称其已撤回向美国法院提出的境外债务重组协议安排申请。
继中国恒大陷入严重债务危机并被香港高等法院颁布清盘令后，世茂集团近期被债权人提出清盘呈请的事件再度引发内地债权人关注。对于内地债权人而言，香港清盘程序究竟会对其产生何种影响？
关于香港清盘程序以及清盘令的内容，以及香港清盘程序与内地破产程序的对比，详见我们在香港公司清盘程序对内地债权人的影响（一）一文中的分析。
Introduction
Keepwell deeds have been commonly used in financing arrangements entered into by business groups in Mainland China and foreign lenders because of the former limitation on repatriating proceeds raised overseas by Mainland companies, which had necessitated the use of foreign subsidiaries and a security structure.
A Hong Kong court has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that practitioners should explain the key terms and effect of any proposed restructuring in a way which can be easily understood by the creditors and the court.
In Re Sino Oiland Gas Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1135, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that creditors had been given insufficient information about the restructuring and the scheme that would enable them to make an informed decision at the scheme meeting.
In highly-anticipated twin rulings, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal has confirmed the approach which should be taken when a debtor opposes insolvency proceedings on the basis of a defence or claim which is subject to an arbitration clause (Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2024] HKCA 299; Re