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

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。

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?

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.

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.