一直以來，香港的公司清盤制度均欠缺法定企業拯救程序，因此，陷入財政困難的公司只能透 過以下途徑拯救其業務：(i) 與主要債權人透過非法定途徑就重組債務達成共識，或 (ii) 根據香 港法例第 622 章《公司條例》進行債務償還安排計劃。然而，上述兩個途徑均有很多問題，例 如費用高昂、不切實際、欠缺彈性和繁瑣費時。

今年較早時候，香港政府宣布重啟企業拯救條例草案，在香港推行（其中包括）法定的企業拯 救程序。《公司（企業拯救）條例草案》（「條例草案」）旨在與國際慣例及標準接軌。下文 將概述最新的立法建議。

發起臨時監管

根據條例草案，已經或很大機會變為無力償債的公司，可以發起企業拯救程序，委任一名獨立 的第三方專業人士（必須為註冊會計師或律師）為臨時監管人。臨時監管人會在暫止期（亦稱 為臨時監管期，建議為期 45 個辦公日）內擔任公司的代理人。在暫止期內，公司將以持續經 營形式繼續經營下去，而臨時監管人會訂定拯救方案（稱為「自願償債安排」），在臨時監管 期結束後的債權人會議上審議。債權人將藉由決議案決定是否批准自願償債安排建議；如獲批 准，自願償債安排將由臨時監管人監管實施。

法定暫止期

引言：近期某集团破产清算案中，关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项，上海金融法院作出裁定，对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可，鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中，管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此，关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此，本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手，在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下，阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径，并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。

一、“维好协议”的性质分析

（一）何谓“维好协议”

Hong Kong corporate bankruptcy and insolvency laws enable secured creditors to enforce their security and create a collective mechanism for the distribution of assets after secured claims are satisfied. This collective mechanism is administered by a liquidator, to whom preferential and unsecured creditors must prove their claims in order to be entitled to a distribution by the liquidator from the assets remaining after security has been discharged.

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Grand Court”) in the matter of Sun Cheong Creative Development Holdings Limited (FSD 160 of 2020), the Chief Justice considered the principles applicable to the appointment of “soft touch” provisional liquidators to effect the restructuring of a Hong Kong-listed Cayman Islands company where two competing winding up petitions were filed before the High Court of Hong Kong (the ("HK Petitions" and the “HK Court” respectively).

Introduction 

On 12 November 2020, the Official Receiver's Office ("ORO") issued Circular No. 2 / 2020 setting out the revised arrangement on submission of Form D1 and Form D2 by provisional liquidators or liquidators to the Official Receiver ("Circular"). Provisional liquidators / liquidators ("Liquidators") are required to submit a statutory Form D1 to the ORO when they become aware of any unfit conduct of a director. The Circular takes effect from 1 December 2020.

Hong Kong's insolvency system is famous for its lack of statutory corporate rescue procedure ("CRP"). Owing to the lack of CRP, financially distressed companies may only recourse to rescue their business with (i) a non-statutory consensual agreement with major creditors to restructure debts, or (ii) a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622). These options, however, have many problems such as being expensive, impracticable, inflexible and tedious.

The Hong Kong government is proposing much-anticipated legislation for the introduction of a corporate rescue procedure and insolvent trading regime. Hong Kong has, for years, struggled to introduce a statutory corporate rescue procedure (CRP), having previously made unsuccessful attempts in 2000-2001, 2008-2009, and 2014. Now – with COVID-19 severely impacting the economy – the government has finally tabled the Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill.

In Re Ando Credit Limited [2020] HKCFI 2775 (“Re Ando”), the Hong Kong Companies Court recently appointed provisional liquidators over a Hong Kong company, Ando Credit Limited, in novel circumstances with potentially significant consequences.

1 November 2020 ONC Corporate Disputes and Insolvency Quarterly Dear Clients and Friends, This special newsletter aims to regularly update practitioners on important and noteworthy cases in the areas of corporate disputes and insolvency in Hong Kong, the UK and other common law jurisdictions. We would also seek to give alert on important legislative and regulatory initiatives from Hong Kong.

Heidi Chui, Stevenson, Wong & Co

This is an extract from the 2021 edition of GRR's the Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.

In summary