Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.

We recently blogged (here) about the Privy Council decision of Sian Participation Corporation (In Liquidation) v Halimeda InternationalLtd [2024] UKPC 16 (

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?

企业出现债务危机时，通常首选通过续贷、增益担保、延期支付等各种方式进行化解，避免债务危机扩散影响自身经营和市场竞争力。庭外债务重组往往是在企业通过诸多努力仍难以遏制危机蔓延时才会提出。启动庭外债务重组时，绝大多数债务人已无法全额清偿到期债务，同时还可能存在多项诉讼或仲裁、银行账户被冻结甚至资产被司法处置等不利情形。在此情况下，债权人很难相信债务人仅凭自身架构调整或经营方案优化可以摆脱债务危机，其更希望看到有投资人参与到重组中，为其债权回收提供更多可能性；债务人亦需要引入投资人为其提供资金、业务等全方位的支持，并以此为基础与债权人协商解决债务问题。因此，在庭外债务重组中引入投资人是债权人和债务人的共识。庭外债务重组实践中，鲜少出现没有投资人参与而由债务人与债权人自行完成重组的案例。

一、投资人的类型

Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.

Where a winding up petition is based on a debt arising from a contract with a non-Hong Kong exclusive jurisdiction clause, the court will tend to dismiss or stay the winding up petition in favour of the parties’ agreed forum unless there are strong countervailing factors.

In the current economic climate, more and more companies are getting into financial difficulties, informal workouts by debtor companies, with support from certain creditors, seem to be increasingly common.

When a company is in the so-called “twilight zone” approaching insolvency, it is well-established that the directors’ fiduciary duties require them to take into account interest of creditors (the so-called “creditor duty”).

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm

In Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2023] HKCFI 1443, the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Court“) made a winding up order against the Company on the basis that it failed to pay security in time. In considering the Company’s opposition grounds, the Court commented that it retains discretion to wind up a company in cases involving an arbitration clause.