When a company is in financial distress, directors face difficult choices. Should they trade on to try to “trade out” of the company’s financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they act too soon, will creditors complain that they should have done more to save the business? A recent English High Court case raises the prospect of directors potentially being held to account for decisions that “merely postpone the inevitable.”

A Hong Kong court has refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that practitioners should explain the key terms and effect of any proposed restructuring in a way which can be easily understood by the creditors and the court.

In Re Sino Oiland Gas Holdings Ltd [2024] HKCFI 1135, the Honourable Madam Justice Linda Chan refused to sanction a scheme of arrangement, saying that creditors had been given insufficient information about the restructuring and the scheme that would enable them to make an informed decision at the scheme meeting.

Although there are occasions when formal insolvency proceedings are unavoidable, there are many cases where a consensual, out-of-court approach is more appropriate and desirable.

We are often engaged to assist creditors, directors and other stakeholders with negotiating standstill agreements or restructuring support agreements to give breathing space to put new terms in place and allow the relevant corporate entity (or group) to continue as a going concern.

The Hong Kong Court of Appeal has finally laid to rest the vexed issue of whether an arbitration agreement or a winding-up petition should take precedence in an insolvency situation. In two parallel decisions, the Court of Appeal ruled that an arbitration agreement should be treated in the same way as an exclusive jurisdiction clause and that the principle should be given a wide interpretation.

We have published a series of articles dealing with directors’ duties in the zone of insolvency.

The Hong Kong High Court has given a rare order for modifications to a scheme of arrangement after it had been implemented incorrectly by the scheme administrators. Drawing on instances in which the English courts have sanctioned modifications after approval by scheme creditors, the court held that the same principles apply here.

The Hong Kong court has granted an order forcing an uncooperative former director of a Hong Kong listed company to ratify the appointment of a Hong Kong liquidator as the sole director of the companies' four BVI subsidiaries. The court rejected the idea that the liquidators should be made to apply for fresh winding up orders in the BVI and stressed that courts should be ready to offer each other mutual assistance.

Three recent Hong Kong first instance court decisions have left undecided the question of whether a winding-up petition will trump an agreement to arbitrate when it comes to a winding-up and particularly in the context of cross-claims. A Court of Final Appeal decision this spring had seemed to provide pointers that the parties' agreement would be upheld but the issue – particularly when it comes to unmeritorious and late arbitration applications – is dividing the courts.

Following the UK Supreme Court decision in Sequana¹ at the end of 2022, the New Zealand Supreme Court has now weighed in on the issue of the duties owed by directors of a company in the zone of insolvency in a long-running case involving the liquidation estate of Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited.²

根据英国最高法院 2022 年底 Sequana¹ 的判决 ，新西兰最高法院在涉及 Mainzeal Property and Construction Limited²清算财产的长期案件中，对破产区公司董事所承担的义务问题进行了权衡及作出有力贡献。

当世界各地的董事们正努力应对各种宏观经济因素带来的困难和不确定时期时，这些决策为董事们应采取哪些保护自己及公司的方法提供了有用且及时的指导。

这可能意味着听取有关停止交易的建议，尝试签订重组支持协议或任命官员提供协助。在开曼群岛，新的重组支持官员制度提供了一个有用的体系，为董事提供休整期，以便在适当的情况下促进和实施可行的计划。

Mainzeal 的最新决定再次提醒大家，公司董事未能采纳建议和采取适当行动可能会导致严重后果。

Mainzeal 决定