Fulltext Search

What is the so-called "creditor duty"?

This is the duty, introduced into English common law by the leading case of West Mercia Safetywear v Dodd1 in 1988, of company directors to consider, or act in accordance with, the interests of the company's creditors when the company becomes insolvent, or when it approaches, or is at real risk of insolvency.

Background

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。

On 22 July 2022, the English High Court sanctioned Houst Limited’s (“Houst” or the “Company”) restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”), which significantly, is the first time a Restructuring Plan has been used to cram down HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) as preferential creditor.1

Background

On 12 January 2022, the English High Court granted Smile Telecoms Holdings Limited’s (“Smile” or the “Company”) application to convene a single meeting of plan creditors (the super senior creditors) to vote on the Company’s proposed restructuring plan (the “Restructuring Plan”). It is the first plan to use section 901C(4) of the Companies Act 2006 (“CA 2006”) to exclude other classes of creditors and shareholders from voting on the Restructuring Plan on the basis that they have no genuine economic interest in the Company. 

Background 

On the 19th of August 2021, the English High Court sanctioned a Part 26A restructuring plan proposed by the administrators of Amicus Finance plc (in administration) (“Amicus”) for the company’s solvent exit from administration, enabling the company to be rescued as a going concern (the “Restructuring Plan”).

On 29 September 2021, the English High Court rejected a challenge in respect of Caff Nero's company voluntary arrangement ("CVA"), brought by a landlord on the grounds of material irregularity and unfair prejudice. The single disgruntled landlord, with the backing of the EG Group ("EG") (who were interested in acquiring Caff Nero), argued that the directors of the company and the CVA nominees breached their respective duties in refusing to adjourn or postpone the electronic voting process to vote on the CVA, after EG had submitted an eleventh-hour offer for Caff Nero.

On 2 June 2020, Mr Justice Morgan handed down his judgment in the case of Re: A Company [2020] EWHC 1406 (Ch) in which a High Street retailer (whose identity is not disclosed) applied to restrain the presentation of a winding-up petition based on the provisions of the yet-to-be-enacted Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill 2020 (the “Bill”).