一直以來，香港的公司清盤制度均欠缺法定企業拯救程序，因此，陷入財政困難的公司只能透 過以下途徑拯救其業務：(i) 與主要債權人透過非法定途徑就重組債務達成共識，或 (ii) 根據香 港法例第 622 章《公司條例》進行債務償還安排計劃。然而，上述兩個途徑均有很多問題，例 如費用高昂、不切實際、欠缺彈性和繁瑣費時。

今年較早時候，香港政府宣布重啟企業拯救條例草案，在香港推行（其中包括）法定的企業拯 救程序。《公司（企業拯救）條例草案》（「條例草案」）旨在與國際慣例及標準接軌。下文 將概述最新的立法建議。

發起臨時監管

根據條例草案，已經或很大機會變為無力償債的公司，可以發起企業拯救程序，委任一名獨立 的第三方專業人士（必須為註冊會計師或律師）為臨時監管人。臨時監管人會在暫止期（亦稱 為臨時監管期，建議為期 45 個辦公日）內擔任公司的代理人。在暫止期內，公司將以持續經 營形式繼續經營下去，而臨時監管人會訂定拯救方案（稱為「自願償債安排」），在臨時監管 期結束後的債權人會議上審議。債權人將藉由決議案決定是否批准自願償債安排建議；如獲批 准，自願償債安排將由臨時監管人監管實施。

法定暫止期

簡介

2020 年 11 月 12 日，破產管理署發出 2020 年第 2 號通告，當中載列關於臨時清盤人或清盤 人向破產管理署署長提交表格 D1 及 D2 的經修訂安排（「通告」）。臨時清盤人／清盤人 （統稱「清盤人」）如知悉董事有任何不當行為操守，須向破產管理署署長提交法定表格 D1。通告將於 2020 年 12 月 1 日生效。

現有安排

如無力償債公司的清盤人認為現任或前任董事的行為操守（不論單獨觀之或連同其作為任何其 他公司的董事的行為操守觀之）使該人不適宜關涉公司的管理，則須填妥香港法例第 32J 章 《公司（董事行為操守報告）規例》附表內的表格 D1，向破產管理署署長報告有關事宜。

破產管理署署長在收到上述報告後，如信納符合公眾利益，可根據香港法例第 32 章《公司 （清盤及雜項條文）條例》第 168I 條向法院申請針對任何現時或曾經出任無力償債公司董事 的人士發出取消資格令。

清盤人如認為前任或現任董事的行為操守不適宜公司的管理，即可援引報告規定。該規定同樣 適用於公司成員自動清盤的情況。

新安排

Introduction 

On 12 November 2020, the Official Receiver's Office ("ORO") issued Circular No. 2 / 2020 setting out the revised arrangement on submission of Form D1 and Form D2 by provisional liquidators or liquidators to the Official Receiver ("Circular"). Provisional liquidators / liquidators ("Liquidators") are required to submit a statutory Form D1 to the ORO when they become aware of any unfit conduct of a director. The Circular takes effect from 1 December 2020.

Hong Kong's insolvency system is famous for its lack of statutory corporate rescue procedure ("CRP"). Owing to the lack of CRP, financially distressed companies may only recourse to rescue their business with (i) a non-statutory consensual agreement with major creditors to restructure debts, or (ii) a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622). These options, however, have many problems such as being expensive, impracticable, inflexible and tedious.

Five years after it refused to pay rent and took the landlord to the High Court, and two years after it was placed into liquidation on account of unpaid rent, the final branch of litigation brought by the directors of Oceanic Palms Limited (in liq) has been cut down by the Supreme Court.

The UK Supreme Court in Bresco Electrical Services Ltd (in liq) v Michael J Lonsdale (Electrical Ltd) [2020] UKSC 25 has decided that the adjudication regime for building disputes is not incompatible with the insolvency process.

In the two judgments, Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Salus Safety Equipment Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZHC 1368 and Commissioner Inland Revenue v Green Securities Ltd (in liq) [2020] NZHC 1371, Associate Judge Bell significantly reduced the amount recoverable in each proceeding by liquidators. 

Both cases considered applications from liquidators to seek approval of their remuneration.  In Salus the amount claimed was $91,600 and in Green Securities it was $159,044.

Former liquidator Geoffrey Smith has been convicted on six charges, including stealing $130,000 from two companies to which he had been appointed liquidator. Mr Smith was also convicted of perjury in connection with the same liquidations.

The High Court judgment in Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Livingspace Properties Ltd (in rec and in liq) [2020] NZHC 1434 is another chapter in the continuing, bitter saga between Robert Walker, the liquidator of Livingspace and David Henderson (through his wife as proxy).

New Zealand's insolvency practitioner licensing regime came into force on 1 September 2020.  Ahead of that date, controversial insolvency practitioner, Damien Grant, applied to join RITANZ, which was a requirement for him to be licensed to continue as an insolvency practitioner, because he was not a chartered accountant.  RITANZ considered his application in June 2020 and refused it on good character grounds.  RITANZ's decision has not been publicly released, but is understood to be founded on Grant's historical dishonesty convictions.