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。
系列导语
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，进而影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机。这些投资人可能是企业公募或私募债券的持有人、享有抵押品的银团放贷机构、各类融资架构中的夹层债权人，或是享受回购权或强制出售权的权益投资人。
跨境投资项目下的债务重组，往往会涉及多法域下的复杂法律问题、救济方式和司法程序。特别是在典型的境外持股架构下，当开曼公司作为境外母公司出现债务危机时，如何通过BVI及香港子公司逐级下沉债权人的风控或增信机制，如何衔接和落地相关境内外救济措施，如何最终帮助债权人控制或取得境内子公司的资产或其提供的担保品或抵押品，这些问题的妥善解决是债务重组成功的关键。这要求参与跨境债务重组项目的专业执行团队具有跨市场和跨国界的运作能力、多法域的法律和司法实操经验、高效的项目管理能力以及深刻的风险认知和风险反制筹划能力。由于各个法域下的质权之设立、优先顺位和有效性对于债权人和质押权人来说至关重要，加强对主要离岸法域对质押行为的程序性规定和质权有效性的判定认识能有效地防范潜在的交易风险。
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.