企业出现债务危机后，可能最终不得不走向破产清算的结局。通常而言，处于债务危机中的企业已存在无偿债能力（insolvent）的情况，不能藉由公司自行注销的程序完成注销公司；否则，未经清盘程序注销的公司有可能仍被债权人申请恢复，并继续追索债务，届时会给公司股东或董事带来不必要的麻烦。相应地，虽然清盘后解散的公司在法律上仍有可能被恢复，但仅限于清盘过程中遗漏重大债权或资产的情况等，通常不会出现这种情况。
根据《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（香港条例第32章）第169条，香港公司清盘方式可分为两大类：第一类是由法院强制清盘；第二类是自愿清盘，而自愿清盘又可以分为股东自愿清盘与债权人自愿清盘两种。各路径均能令香港公司清盘，并在彻底厘清与处理资产及债务情况下宣告公司解散。本文为上篇，将简要介绍香港公司清盘的程序。
一、股东自愿清盘
股东自愿清盘是指公司可以自行由股东会进行特别决议，或董事会层面作出决议，宣布公司进行清盘，并委任清盘人进行清盘程序。根据《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（香港条例第32章）第228条、229条和233条的要求，董事需要在清盘决议前的5个星期内发出一份《有偿债能力证明书》，说明董事已经详细地调查过公司事务，并认为在未来12个月内能够还清各项债务。
在各类跨境投资的项目中，投资人最担心的问题莫过于被投企业的财务状况出现困境，影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机，或者集团的持股结构、治理结构不够透明，各种交叉持股盘根错节。在重组过程中，投资者可能会帮助公司梳理、调整各种投资主体架构，而企业为了解除投资者顾虑，有时也会主动进行投资主体架构的重组和优化，包括把多余的主体和结构层级精简掉。
在跨境投资的架构中，往往涉及到多层持股架构，开曼公司、BVI公司以及香港公司都是常见的持股主体。如果我们在重组中需要把这些主体精简注销，需要走什么样的程序，复杂不复杂？在本文中，我们将与大家分享开曼豁免有限公司的清盘和解散，并且后续文章中陆续与大家分享其他法域主体的清算和注销。
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.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.
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.