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.

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by

Introduction

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.

We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.