Introduction
在全球市場資金成本不斷增加的背景下，過去12個月許多開曼群島上市公司已成功採取協商一致的重組措施，以管理其債務水平、現金流和融資需求。
開曼群島《公司法》中的工具，提供了快速且具成本效益的公司重組方式；《2024年公司（修訂）法案》將提出修訂，增強開曼群島金融服務產品，令這些工具今年將進一步簡化。
有爭議的重組
2022年8月31日，開曼群島引入備受期待的重組制度改革（重組修正案），使債務人公司能夠以已經或可能無法償還債務並打算向債權人提出妥協或安排，向法院請求委任重組官。
儘管重組修正案為債權人和債務人公司帶來了許多好處，但推出之際恰逢2008年金融危機以來全球央行最大幅度加息。
英國的利率從2021年12月的0.1%升至2023年8月的5.25%，而美聯儲亦將利率從2022年3月的0-0.25%上調至2023年7月的5.25-5.5% (parliament. uk)。因此，債務重組通常所需的資金成本使許多陷入困境的全球企業無法承受外部融資。
A Court-approved reduction of capital is one of the corporate reorganisation tools that has been successfully deployed by listed companies domiciled in the Cayman Islands in order to manage debt and liquidity.
After a 10-month inquiry process, on 12 July 2023 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (PJC) delivered its final report on the effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws.
In this alert, we distil some of the key findings from the almost 400-page report and consider what future law reforms might look like.
A COMPLEX AND INEFFICIENT SYSTEM
The High Court of Australia in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 has confirmed the view of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that the "set off" defence under section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) is no longer available to claims by liquidators for an unfair preference claim made under section 588FA of the Act.
This decision brings finality to claims brought by Creditor Defendants to such claims and no doubt brings much joy to liquidators across Australia.
For some time, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a "set-off" defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused much controversy in the insolvency profession. Defendants of preference claims loved it, liquidators disliked it and the courts did not provide clear direction about its applicability – until now.
For some time, the reliance on section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) as a "set-off" defence to an unfair preference claim, under section 588FA of the Act, has caused much controversy in the insolvency profession. Defendants of preference claims loved it, liquidators disliked it and the courts did not provide clear direction about its applicability – until now.
It is clear that there are going to be incredible impacts to businesses and companies of all sizes as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. No business will be immune to the impact of this health epidemic. Across the globe, governments have responded in various ways to change insolvency laws in an attempt to provide assistance to those businesses affected directly or indirectly by COVID-19. Australia is no different and the Federal and State Governments have responded quickly to the crisis.
In an unprecedented move the Federal Government has announced temporary changes to some aspects of existing insolvency laws as part of the plan to try and keep businesses operating during this unique health crisis time.
Insolvent Trading
On 21 September 2018, the Supreme Court of Western Australia Court of Appeal delivered the eagerly anticipated decision in Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)1. The appeal decision has come down on the side of what many considered to be the correct position for set off compared to the findings in the first Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed)2 case.