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。
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.
Judge: Preston
Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever
(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)
(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.
Judge: Lloyd
Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener
Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer
The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.
Judge: Rogers
Appellant: Pro Se
Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt
(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2011)
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Oct. 20, 2017)
The bankruptcy court dismisses the debtor’s complaint against the lender, which asserted claims related to the lender’s foreclosure of its mortgage lien in state court. The court dismisses the stay violation claim, because the property was not property of the estate at the time of the alleged acts, and dismisses the remaining claims because the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Opinion below.
Judge: Carr
Attorney for Debtor: Sawin, Shea & Des Jardines LLC, J. Andrew Sawin