Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220 (date of judgment 1 November 2019)

But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238 (date of judgment 2 August 2019)

The Companies Court has changed the approach in which winding up proceedings are handled when the alleged debt is the subject of an arbitration agreement in the case of Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426. In two recent bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeal made obiter comments on the Lasmos approach.

The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.

Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.

大禹金融控股有限公司（前称为China Agrotech Holdings Limited浩伦农业科技集团有限公司）（清盘中） [2019] HKCFI 2531 （判决日期2019年10月17日）

这是一宗关于对香港上市的离岸公司进行债务重组中获准并存债务偿还计划的案件。在债务偿还计划中，重组成本通常数额巨大，直接影响对计划债权人的回报。本案中，香港法院对使用并存债务偿还计划，以及重组成本和债权人回报之间的关系，提出了富有远见的意见。

背景情况

大禹金融控股有限公司（前称为China Agrotech Holdings Limited浩伦农业科技集团有限公司）（清盘中）（下称“公司”）成立于开曼群岛，并于香港联交所上市。公司自2015年初开始清盘，其上市状态是公司的唯一重大资产。公司大部分的债务均受香港法管辖。

清算人已找到了一名白衣骑士，以进行债务重组和恢复公司股份的交易。拟议重组计划涉及对公司股本的重构和向投资者发行新股，收益将用于支付收购新业务的费用、公司重组费用和部分解除公司负债。债权人回报率约为4.28%，在开曼群岛和香港开展并存债务偿还计划，预期实现债务重组。

——新修订将如何影响上市公司重组

作为打击壳股活动的一系列举措之一，香港联合交易所有限公司（以下简称“联交所”）修订了《香港联合交易所有限公司证券上市规则》（以下简称“《上市规则》”）中的大量条文，并发布了相关指引信。最新修订的条文于2019年10月1日生效，修订主要关于借壳上市和持续上市准则有关。其他已于2018年开始生效修订的条文与除牌机制和融资规则有关。除此之外，联交所逐渐加强了对新上市申请人的上市适合性审查。尽管这些修订主要针对壳股活动，但是也会影响其他重组活动，包括上市公司破产重组。

我们将在本文中分享对上述修订及其对上市公司破产重组的影响的看法。本文不讨论《上市规则》中所有经过修订的条文，仅关注某些会影响上市公司重组的特定条文。

除牌制度

在2018年8月以前，根据《上市规则》第17项应用指引的规定，除牌程序由三阶段组成。但在2018年8月以后，除牌程序简单化，上市公司持续停牌18个月，联交所即可将其除牌。

In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).

The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.

The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.

Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.

A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.

The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following:

The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.

The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.