Over the past decade, insolvency practitioners have developed an intrigue for the use of the creditors’ trust. Many have sought to structure their Deeds of Company Arrangement’s (DOCA) in a way that interfaces with a creditors’ trust through the mechanism of a creditors’ trust deed.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Enares Pty Limited v Nimble Money Limited [2022] FCAFC 126, in which the Full Court considered shareholder information rights in the context of a dispute between Nimble’s board and its largest shareholder as to how to refinance Nimble’s debt.
Key takeaways
Creditors of distressed businesses are often frustrated by shareholder-controlled boards when directors pursue strategies that appear to be designed to benefit shareholders at the creditors’ expense. In these circumstances, creditors might consider sending a letter to the board to convince the directors to pivot and adopt alternative strategies or face risk of liability for breaching fiduciary duties. The efficacy of this approach depends on many factors, including the company’s financial condition, the board’s composition and the underlying transactions at issue.
簡介
最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中,本所代表呈請人成功申請將嘉年華國際控股有限公司(「該公司」)清盤。該公司是一家在香港聯合交易所(「聯交所」)上市的百慕達公司。在本案中,法院澄清及確認其將外國公司清盤的司法管轄權。此外,法院命令就訟費問題將該公司董事(「董事」)加入為被告人,因此日後假如公司在欠缺理據的情況下反對清盤呈請,董事或須就呈請人及支持清盤的債權人的訟費承擔個人責任。
背景
該公司在百慕達註冊成立,並根據香港前《公司條例》第XI部註冊為海外公司,其股份在聯交所上市,股份代號 996。該公司是一家投資控股公司,持有在香港、中國內地及英屬維爾京群島註冊成立的附屬公司(統稱「該集團」)。該集團主要在中國內地經營主題式休閒及消費業務。
Introduction
简介
最近在Re Carnival Group International Holdings Ltd [2022] HKCFI 2668一案中,本所代表呈请人成功申请将嘉年华国际控股有限公司(「该公司」)清盘。该公司是一家在香港联合交易所(「联交所」)上市的百慕达公司。在本案中,法院澄清及确认其将外国公司清盘的司法管辖权。此外,法院命令就讼费问题将该公司董事(「董事」)加入为被告人,因此日后假如公司在欠缺理据的情况下反对清盘呈请,董事或须就呈请人及支持清盘的债权人的讼费承担个人责任。
背景
该公司在百慕达注册成立,并根据香港前《公司条例》第XI部注册为海外公司,其股份在联交所上市,股份代号 996。该公司是一家投资控股公司,持有在香港、中国内地及英属维尔京群岛注册成立的附属公司(统称「该集团」)。该集团主要在中国内地经营主题式休闲及消费业务。
Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli details a case where the court considered the issue of protecting assets that are subject to a proprietary claim.
A High Court ruling regarding frozen assets can be seen as a positive outcome for both the claimant and potential claimants in future such cases.
The ruling has shown that the courts will be robust when it comes to protecting assets over which a proprietary claim is being made.
Case Background
一、模拟案例
A公司看好B公司的发展前景,意欲与其实际控制人张三签订投资协议,由A公司向B公司增资。同时为确保自己的投资安全,A公司与张三同时约定,股权回购条件成就时,张三须向A公司回购股份。合同签订后,A公司依约向B公司汇入投资款。然而由于市场环境突然变化,B公司由盈利转为亏损,股权回购条件触发,A公司向张三主张股权回购。此时A公司发现,张三已经与其配偶协议离婚且净身出户,放弃了较大数额夫妻共同财产的所有权。此时,A公司应当如何保护自己的债权?
站在A公司要求债务得到清偿的角度,存在以下几种可能。如果张三与A公司签订协议时,提供了财产为A公司设立担保,那么A公司可以就张三所提供的财产行使担保物权。如果有第三人为张三的债务提供保证,那么A公司可以要求第三人承担保证责任。如果A公司有证据能够证明案涉债务成立夫妻共同债务,即使张三已经与其配偶离婚,A公司也可以追讨张三及其配偶的夫妻共同财产,使自己的债权得以实现。如果A公司无证据证明案涉债务成立夫妻共同债务,或者法院认为案涉债务不成立夫妻共同债务,A公司还有一种选择:撤销张三在离婚协议中放弃夫妻共同财产的行为,使得张三财产得到恢复,增强其偿债能力。A公司撤销张三放弃夫妻共同财产行为的权利,在法律上被称为债权人撤销权。
二、债权人撤销权的法律规定
On 27 July 2022, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Zoom Communications Private Limited v Par Excellence Real Estate Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 619 of 2022 upheld the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) dated 17 May 2022 dismissing an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that the debt appeared suspicious and collusive in nature.
Background
When a company is insolvent, the directors of a company are under a duty to protect the interests of the company’s creditors. Directors can therefore be liable for the actions they take before a company stops trading and also during insolvency. This includes:
(a) Wrongful trading If directors continue to run a business and incur further credits and debts despite knowing there was no way of the company avoiding insolvency, they may be liable for wrongful trading.