簡介

香港法院過往一直承認公司在其註冊成立所在的司法管轄區展開的外地清盤程序。但最近在Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789一案中，夏利士法官提出一種新的方法，承認在公司的「主要利益中心」所在的司法管轄區進行的外地清盤程序。夏利士法官認為，就香港法院承認及協助外地清盤人而言，外地清盤程序在公司註冊成立地點進行這一點並不足夠，也非必要。

背景

利標品牌有限公司（「該公司」）是一間在百慕達註冊成立，並在香港聯合交易所上市的投資控股公司。由於新型肺炎疫情持續，該公司及其附屬公司的業務面臨嚴峻困難，因此該公司董事會認為展開清盤程序符合該公司的利益，並向百慕達法院申請委任臨時清盤人（「臨時清盤人」），授以有限度權力以協助該公司重組債務。然而，重組並不成功，百慕達法院於2021年11月5日對該公司發出清盤令。

简介

香港法院过往一直承认公司在其注册成立所在的司法管辖区展开的外地清盘程序。但最近在Provisional Liquidator of Global Brands Group Holding Ltd v Computershare Hong Kong Trustees Ltd [2022] HKCFI 1789一案中，夏利士法官提出一种新的方法，承认在公司的「主要利益中心」所在的司法管辖区进行的外地清盘程序。夏利士法官认为，就香港法院承认及协助外地清盘人而言，外地清盘程序在公司注册成立地点进行这一点并不足够，也非必要。

背景

利标品牌有限公司（「该公司」）是一间在百慕达注册成立，并在香港联合交易所上市的投资控股公司。由于新型肺炎疫情持续，该公司及其附属公司的业务面临严峻困难，因此该公司董事会认为展开清盘程序符合该公司的利益，并向百慕达法院申请委任临时清盘人（「临时清盘人」），授以有限度权力以协助该公司重组债务。然而，重组并不成功，百慕达法院于2021年11月5日对该公司发出清盘令。

Introduction

The corporate insolvency statistics for Q2 2022 paint a worrying picture for UK businesses. With inflation at a 40-year high, fuelled by soaring gas and electricity bills, food prices and wage increases, the cost of living crisis is taking hold across the economy.

Four directors have been disqualified for abusing the dissolution process pursuant to powers introduced by the Rating (Coronavirus) and Directors Disqualification (Dissolved Companies) Act 2021 (the Act). In each case, the director secured a bounce back loan on behalf of their company before taking steps to dissolve the company in an attempt to avoid repaying liabilities under the scheme.

The government’s monthly insolvency statistics for June 2022 paint a picture of an economy that is still struggling to return to pre-pandemic profitability. Company insolvencies were 40% higher than for the same period last year and 15% higher than in June 2019 (i.e. pre-pandemic levels), with the increased level of insolvencies being largely driven by the higher number of creditors’ voluntary liquidations.

Anyone working in financial services will be aware of the requirement for individuals carrying out regulated roles to be "fit and proper". Clearly this is going to include solid personal finances and demonstrable honesty and integrity. The EAT decided that an estate agent who was dismissed because he became bankrupt and did not tell his employer was fairly dismissed.

On 22 July 2022, judgment was handed down in relation to the sanction of the first Part 26A restructuring plan to be proposed by a small–medium enterprise (SME) in Re Houst Limited [2022] EWHC 1941 (Ch). The restructuring plan (RP) procedure set out in Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 (CA 2006) has been widely considered to be out of the reach of SMEs due to excessive cost. The decision is also an interesting one for other reasons, notably the cram-down of HMRC as a dissenting creditor.

Introduction

In the recent case of Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898, the Court explained when a creditor would be considered acting unreasonable in rejecting a debtor’s settlement proposal. At the end of the hearing, the Court made a winding-up order against the Company in question and a bankruptcy order against the director of the Company, Mr Ashit Sud, who had provided guarantees.

Background

簡介

最近在Re Ashit Sud (Debtor)[2022] 2 HKLRD 898一案中，法院說明了債權人在甚麼情況下拒絕債務人的和解建議會被視為不合理。案件審結時，法院對涉案公司（「該公司」）發出清盤令，以及對提供擔保的公司董事Ashit Sud先生（「該董事」）發出破產令。

背景