——新修订将如何影响上市公司重组

作为打击壳股活动的一系列举措之一，香港联合交易所有限公司（以下简称“联交所”）修订了《香港联合交易所有限公司证券上市规则》（以下简称“《上市规则》”）中的大量条文，并发布了相关指引信。最新修订的条文于2019年10月1日生效，修订主要关于借壳上市和持续上市准则有关。其他已于2018年开始生效修订的条文与除牌机制和融资规则有关。除此之外，联交所逐渐加强了对新上市申请人的上市适合性审查。尽管这些修订主要针对壳股活动，但是也会影响其他重组活动，包括上市公司破产重组。

我们将在本文中分享对上述修订及其对上市公司破产重组的影响的看法。本文不讨论《上市规则》中所有经过修订的条文，仅关注某些会影响上市公司重组的特定条文。

除牌制度

在2018年8月以前，根据《上市规则》第17项应用指引的规定，除牌程序由三阶段组成。但在2018年8月以后，除牌程序简单化，上市公司持续停牌18个月，联交所即可将其除牌。

How the recent changes will impact restructurings of listed companies

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?

How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?

In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.

BACKGROUND