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。
Following an August 11, 2022 opinion from the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, certain irrevocable surety bonds will not be considered executory contracts in bankruptcy, even when a court applies a functional multiparty approach to the traditional Countryman definition of an executory contract.
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 crypto winter has overcast the summer for many Voyager customers. Upon the commencement of Voyager’s chapter 11 filing in July, customer accounts were frozen. Unable to trade their own crypto assets, some frustrated customers rushed to consult with legal counsel. Others began studying bankruptcy law in the hopes of finding a legal solution. It was only late last week, on August 4, when some customers found relief from the crypto storm: Judge Michael Wiles approved Voyager’s motion to allow certain customers who had cash in their accounts to withdraw cash, up to $270 million.
Following an August 4, 2022 memorandum opinion from Judge Brendan L. Shannon of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, a party to a safe harbored contract can qualify as a “financial participant” under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code even where the party was not a financial participant at the time of the transaction.
Voyager Digital Assets, Inc., a leading cryptocurrency brokerage and lending platform, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on July 5, 2022 in the Southern District of New York following a recent financial crisis impacting the crypto industry, which investors are calling the “crypto winter.” The filing was followed by the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Celsius Networks. While the situation is fluid, these two filings could be the beginning of a series of bankruptcies by major cryptocurrency companies.
Following a July 6, 2022 memorandum opinion from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, lenders and noteholders seeking to preserve the priority of their liens must make any desired subordination protections explicit in their security documents. Judge Craig T. Goldblatt’s decision in In re TPC Group Inc. upholds a prepetition “uptier” transaction and narrows the issues before the Bankruptcy Court regarding TPC Group Inc.’s desired entry into a debtor-in-possession loan with an ad hoc group of noteholders over the dissent of minority holders.
引言
在当今国际国内供应链债务违约增多的背景下,作为供应链体系中重要支付手段的票据违约也不断集中爆发。当票据违约遭遇票据当事人破产,持票人追偿票据债权将更为困难和复杂。本文主要探讨不同破产情形下持票人行权的策略,以及破产重整计划对持票人行使追索权的可能影响,望对供应链行业交易合规和纠纷解决有所启发。
一、承兑人或出票人破产情形下,持票人追偿票据债权的策略选择
以往银行汇票较少出现承兑人(或付款人)破产的情形,多为出票人破产,但近些年如包商银行破产、以及大型企业集团破产带来的其集团财务公司破产,使得银行汇票中承兑人破产也成为了现实问题。就商业汇票而言,出票人与付款人/承兑人可能为同一主体,也可能为不同主体,均有可能陷入破产困境。在不同情形下持票人追偿债权的可能策略,值得探讨。
On March 14, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”) revisited the issue of the rejection of filed-rate contracts in bankruptcy where such contracts are governed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”). The ruling marks the first time the Fifth Circuit has addressed this issue since its 2004 decision in In re Mirant Corp.1 In Federal Energy Regulatory Commission v.