The idea of reforming Hong Kong’s corporate rescue regime was first floated back in 1996. It was introduced in the form of the Companies (Corporate Rescue) Bill 2001 but got nowhere due to differences of opinion. This was returned to the table subsequently in 2003, 2009 and 2014, but nothing ever came to fruition.

China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd (the “Company”) is a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands and listed on the Hong Kong exchange. Almost 100% of the group’s revenue is generated by its Mainland subsidiaries, from the manufacture and sale of fruit and vegetable concentrate, purée and juice beverages in the Mainland.

When the Hong Kong Court recognises offshore soft-touch provisional liquidation, will there be an automatic stay of proceedings in Hong Kong?

Recently, in Re FDG Electric Vehicles Limited [2020] HKCFI 2931, the Companies Court answered “no”. In doing so, the Court revisited the wording of the standard-form recognition order.

Soft-touch provisional liquidations

一直以來，香港的公司清盤制度均欠缺法定企業拯救程序，因此，陷入財政困難的公司只能透 過以下途徑拯救其業務：(i) 與主要債權人透過非法定途徑就重組債務達成共識，或 (ii) 根據香 港法例第 622 章《公司條例》進行債務償還安排計劃。然而，上述兩個途徑均有很多問題，例 如費用高昂、不切實際、欠缺彈性和繁瑣費時。

今年較早時候，香港政府宣布重啟企業拯救條例草案，在香港推行（其中包括）法定的企業拯 救程序。《公司（企業拯救）條例草案》（「條例草案」）旨在與國際慣例及標準接軌。下文 將概述最新的立法建議。

發起臨時監管

根據條例草案，已經或很大機會變為無力償債的公司，可以發起企業拯救程序，委任一名獨立 的第三方專業人士（必須為註冊會計師或律師）為臨時監管人。臨時監管人會在暫止期（亦稱 為臨時監管期，建議為期 45 個辦公日）內擔任公司的代理人。在暫止期內，公司將以持續經 營形式繼續經營下去，而臨時監管人會訂定拯救方案（稱為「自願償債安排」），在臨時監管 期結束後的債權人會議上審議。債權人將藉由決議案決定是否批准自願償債安排建議；如獲批 准，自願償債安排將由臨時監管人監管實施。

法定暫止期

引言：近期某集团破产清算案中，关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项，上海金融法院作出裁定，对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可，鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中，管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此，关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此，本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手，在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下，阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径，并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。

一、“维好协议”的性质分析

（一）何谓“维好协议”

簡介

2020 年 11 月 12 日，破產管理署發出 2020 年第 2 號通告，當中載列關於臨時清盤人或清盤 人向破產管理署署長提交表格 D1 及 D2 的經修訂安排（「通告」）。臨時清盤人／清盤人 （統稱「清盤人」）如知悉董事有任何不當行為操守，須向破產管理署署長提交法定表格 D1。通告將於 2020 年 12 月 1 日生效。

現有安排

如無力償債公司的清盤人認為現任或前任董事的行為操守（不論單獨觀之或連同其作為任何其 他公司的董事的行為操守觀之）使該人不適宜關涉公司的管理，則須填妥香港法例第 32J 章 《公司（董事行為操守報告）規例》附表內的表格 D1，向破產管理署署長報告有關事宜。

破產管理署署長在收到上述報告後，如信納符合公眾利益，可根據香港法例第 32 章《公司 （清盤及雜項條文）條例》第 168I 條向法院申請針對任何現時或曾經出任無力償債公司董事 的人士發出取消資格令。

清盤人如認為前任或現任董事的行為操守不適宜公司的管理，即可援引報告規定。該規定同樣 適用於公司成員自動清盤的情況。

新安排

Introduction 

On 12 November 2020, the Official Receiver's Office ("ORO") issued Circular No. 2 / 2020 setting out the revised arrangement on submission of Form D1 and Form D2 by provisional liquidators or liquidators to the Official Receiver ("Circular"). Provisional liquidators / liquidators ("Liquidators") are required to submit a statutory Form D1 to the ORO when they become aware of any unfit conduct of a director. The Circular takes effect from 1 December 2020.

Hong Kong's insolvency system is famous for its lack of statutory corporate rescue procedure ("CRP"). Owing to the lack of CRP, financially distressed companies may only recourse to rescue their business with (i) a non-statutory consensual agreement with major creditors to restructure debts, or (ii) a scheme of arrangement under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622). These options, however, have many problems such as being expensive, impracticable, inflexible and tedious.

Hong Kong corporate bankruptcy and insolvency laws enable secured creditors to enforce their security and create a collective mechanism for the distribution of assets after secured claims are satisfied. This collective mechanism is administered by a liquidator, to whom preferential and unsecured creditors must prove their claims in order to be entitled to a distribution by the liquidator from the assets remaining after security has been discharged.

In a recent decision of the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands (the “Grand Court”) in the matter of Sun Cheong Creative Development Holdings Limited (FSD 160 of 2020), the Chief Justice considered the principles applicable to the appointment of “soft touch” provisional liquidators to effect the restructuring of a Hong Kong-listed Cayman Islands company where two competing winding up petitions were filed before the High Court of Hong Kong (the ("HK Petitions" and the “HK Court” respectively).