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。
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 Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following:
The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.
The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.