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。
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
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.
The long-running saga between Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings (“Shandong Chenming“) and Arjowiggins HKK2 Ltd (“Arjowiggins“) has continued with the Court of Appeal handing down its judgment on an appeal against a lower court judgment which had dismissed Shandong Chenming’s application to injunct Arjowiggins from presenting a winding-up petition against Shandong Chenming (Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v. Arjowiggins HKK2 Limited [2020] HKCA 670).
The Hong Kong Court of First Instance has declined to prioritise an arbitration agreement where a debtor intended to dispute the existence of a debt without proving there was a bona fide dispute on substantial grounds.
Dayang (HK) Marine Shipping Co., Ltd v. Asia Master Logistics Ltd [2020] HKCFI 311; HCCW 14/2019
Background
After reluctantly issuing an initial stay of enforcement in July 2018, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance recently dismissed an application by China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd (CZ) to further delay the enforcement of an arbitral award in favour of Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd (BS).
Baosteel Engineering & Technology Group Co Ltd v China Zenith Chemical Group Ltd [2019] HKFCI 68
In a recent Court of First Instance case before Harris J, Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Ltd (Company) sought to strike out a winding-up petition issued against it by Lasmos Ltd (Petitioner). The ground of insolvency relied on by the Petitioner was a statutory demand of US$259,700.48 (Debt), arising out of a management services agreement (MSA) between the Company and the Petitioner (Parties). The Company disputed the Debt.
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.