Fulltext Search

引言

香港法院最近在Re Ando Credit Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2775一案中,首次批准一家香港公司任命临时清盘人[1],并明确旨在允许该临时清盘人向中国内地法院寻求内地法律的承认和执行。

引言

香港法院最近在Re Ando Credit Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2775一案中,首次批准一家香港公司任命临时清盘人[1],并明确旨在允许该临时清盘人向中国内地法院寻求内地法律的承认和执行。

近年市场竞争及经营环境不确定性持续增加的情况下,不少企业有可能面临营运及财务困难,导致债务违约的情况有上升的趋势。如果债务人资不抵债,债权人有权利用破产清盘的程序接管债务人的资产并尽量实现回收最大化。根据香港破产管理署公布的统计数字,在2019年1月至10月期间,强制公司清盘案及破产案呈请的数字达到7,062宗。我们藉此介绍近期香港法院就破产清盘颁发的两个重要判决。

1. 仲裁协议的存在是否会影响破产清盘程序的开展?

香港上诉法院近期在But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873一案中,考虑了债权相关的合同中约定有仲裁条款管辖的情况下,债权人利用法院破产清盘程序的权利会否受限。由于很多的商业协议均载有仲裁条款,法院的判决对债权人的权利及可采取的救济手段有重要意义。

在该案中,上诉人(证券公司客户,即债务人)与被上诉人(证券公司,即债权人)签订的客户协议约定双方之间的争议以仲裁解决。由于上诉人没有偿还保证金账户的欠款,债权人在香港法院申请上诉人破产。上诉人以双方已经约定仲裁为其中一个理由,请求上诉法院撤销债权人发出的法定偿债书。

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.