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.

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。

On December 3, 2019, the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) released its decision in 1732427 Ontario Inc. v. 1787930 Ontario Inc.¹ At issue was a pre-authorized debit payment processed by a supplier after a debtor filed a notice of intention to file a proposal under the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”). The motion judge had found this payment to be an exercise of a creditor remedy prohibited by the stay provisions of subsection 69(1) of the BIA.

Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited (formerly known as China Agrotech Holdings Limited) (in liquidation) [2019] HKCFI 2531 (date of judgment 17 October 2019)

Introduction

Welcome to the 3rd edition of Going Concerns where we strive to bring you the latest updates on restructuring and insolvency law. In this issue, we provide:

1. An update on the extent of financial disclosure that may be ordered against a company undergoing a scheme moratorium under s. 211B(6) of the Singapore Companies Act (Cap. 50);

2. A further commentary on the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Bill; 3. A commentary on the Singapore recognition process of foreign bankruptcies;

On November 14, 2019, the Alberta Court of Appeal (the “ABCA”) released its decision in PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. v. 1905393 Alberta Ltd. (“1905393 Alberta”),¹ dismissing an appeal of an approval and vesting order made in the context of a receivership proceeding.

How the recent changes will impact restructurings of listed companies

In Canada v. Canada North Group Inc., 2019 ABCA 314, the Court of Appeal of Alberta (the “ABCA”) upheld the decision of the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (the “Lower Court”), which held that the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) permits courts to subordinate statutory deemed trusts in favour of the Crown to court-ordered insolvency priming charges.

On November 1, 2019, a number of amendments to the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (the “BIA”) and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) will come into force pursuant to the Canadian federal government’s budget implementation legislation for 2018 and 2019.