Introduction

The immediate focus for Britain’s authorities when dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic has been, quite rightly, to secure the best possible health outcome for the greatest number of people.

Subsequently, following a wave of concern regarding the best way of maintaining the financial status-quo for (i) businesses, (ii) employees, and (iii) individuals, the UK government announced an unprecedented series of assistance programmes, designed to counter the impact of previously unknown, and unquantifiable, distress.

Introduction

Clearly there are some major economic challenges ahead.

Many businesses may be able to withstand the challenges ahead but it may very well be that their trading counterparties (whether suppliers, customers or other stakeholders) will not. Whilst these times can represent an opportunity for some, such as potential acquirers (whether of businesses, assets or distressed debt), in most cases, the climate represents a threat to businesses.

In response to the COVID-19 virus, Canada’s federal government has restricted non-essential travel and closed the US border. Canada’s provincial governments have enacted highly restrictive measures including mandating the closure of facilities providing recreational programs (i.e. gyms), libraries, public and private schools, licensed childcare centres, bars and restaurants, theaters, cinemas and concert venues, and the list goes on. Some provinces have also banned gatherings of more than 5 people and prohibited all non-essential businesses.

On March 17, 2020, the Court of Appeal of Québec (the "Court") issued an important ruling concerning "pre-post" compensation and "non-dischargeable" debts under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act (the "CCAA"), by finding that the debt of a municipality arising from an agreement entered into as part of a voluntary reimbursement program ("VRP") under the Act to ensure mainly the recovery of amounts improperly paid as a result of fraud or fraudulent tactics in connection with public contracts ("Bill 26") is unsecured debt in connection with the insolvency of a co-contra

China Lumena New Materials Corp (in provisional liquidation) [2020] HKCFI 338 (decision made on 23 January 2020 and reasons given on 4 March 2020)

This is the first reported scheme of arrangement in Hong Kong seeking to compromise debt governed by PRC law. Under the Gibbs Rule, a foreign composition does not discharge a debt unless it is discharged under the law governing the debt. In this case, the Hong Kong Court considered an exception to the Gibbs Rule and more generally the principles of sanctioning a scheme.

Background

Somewhere close to Sandton – Africa’s richest square mile – lies the suburb of Parkmore in the Gauteng Province. This is the principal place of business of a debtor that cannot pay its debts, and is facing the barrel of an application for its winding-up. The debtor’s registered address is in Mbombela within the province of Mpumalanga – close to Africa’s Big Five game. Two court options come into play.

South African state-owned enterprises (SOEs) are coming under tremendous pressure to do something to extricate themselves from their financial woes. Any kind of bankruptcy event cannot be the answer: because of the obvious cross-default impact such a declaration will have on various debt and other instruments in the capital markets. It will also be catastrophic to the Government’s standing and rating in the financial markets.

Chapter 6 of the South African Companies Act, 2008, as a corporate restructuring regime, provides a formal restructuring tool for financially distressed (which exists when a company is unable to pay its debts as they fall due (cash-flow insolvency) or when a company’s liabilities exceed the value of its assets (balance-sheet insolvency) or when those events are likely to occur in 6 months (imminent insolvency) companies.

Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220案 (裁决日期：2019年11月1日)

But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238案 (裁决日期：2019年8月2日)

在Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426一案中，当案件所涉债务是一项仲裁协议的标的时，公司法庭改变了原先在这种情况下如何裁定清盘程序的做法（被称为“Lasmos裁决”）。在近期的两起破产案件中，上诉法庭对Lasmos裁决发表了附带意见。

Lasmos案之前的裁决

上海华信国际集团有限公司（在中国大陆清算）[2020] HKCFI 167 (裁决日期：2020年1月13日)

这是香港法院首次向中国大陆法院指定的一家中国大陆公司的管理人发出承认令的案件。该案还考虑如果在送达第三债务人暂准令（garnishee order nisi）后，破产令在外国颁布，此时是否应将第三债务人暂准令转为绝对命令。

案件背景

上海华信国际集团有限公司（以下简称为“CEFC”）是一家在中国大陆注册成立的投资控股公司，是一家企业集团的一部分，该企业集团的业务包括资本融资、石油精炼和基础设施。 2019年11月，上海市第三中级人民法院（以下简称为“上海法院”）下令CEFC破产清算，并指定了联合管理人（以下简称为“管理人”）。

CEFC的资产包括对其在香港地区的子公司上海华信集团（香港）有限公司（以下简称为“香港子公司”）的重大债权，该子公司正在清算中。CEFC已就该债权提供债务证明。