在各类跨境投资的项目中，投资人最担心的问题莫过于被投企业的财务状况出现困境，影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机，或者集团的持股结构、治理结构不够透明，各种交叉持股盘根错节。在重组过程中，投资者可能会帮助公司梳理、调整各种投资主体架构，而企业为了解除投资者顾虑，有时也会主动进行投资主体架构的重组和优化，包括把多余的主体和结构层级精简掉。
在跨境投资的架构中，往往涉及到多层持股架构，开曼公司、BVI公司以及香港公司都是常见的持股主体。如果我们在重组中需要把这些主体精简注销，需要走什么样的程序，复杂不复杂？在本文中，我们将与大家分享开曼豁免有限公司的清盘和解散，并且后续文章中陆续与大家分享其他法域主体的清算和注销。
由于涉及股权回购/现金补偿责任与违约责任，违约金条款在对赌协议中表现得比较复杂。本文将在前述两种分类方法的基础上，结合司法案例具体分析违约金条款在对赌协议中的适用情况。
违约金是民商法中一种常见的违约责任形式。《民法典》第585条第1款就违约金作出了如下规定：
当事人可以约定一方违约时应当根据违约情况相对方支付一定数额的违约金，也可以约定因违约产生的损失赔偿额的计算方法。
显然，《民法典》将约定违约金的性质定位为，合同当事人预先约定的、由一方违约导致另一方损失的损害赔偿额。换言之，约定违约金的基本功能是补偿守约方损失而非惩罚违约方，更不是让守约方通过约定违约金获利。通过后文的案例，我们将看到约定违约金的这一性质定位是如何影响法院判决的。
对赌协议中的违约金条款通常有如下两种表现形式：融资方违反股权回购/现金补偿义务的违约金，融资方违反其他义务的违约金。
以投资方要求股权回购为例，前者表现为，根据对赌协议的约定，股权回购条件成就且投资方向融资方主张回购时，如果不履行或者逾期履行股权回购义务，则融资方需要按照应付但未付款项的一定比例支付逾期违约金。
The Hong Kong commercial and insolvency disputes team acted for the successful appellant in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam -v- Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP CACV 393/2021 [2022] HKCA 1297.
The Cayman Islands' Companies (Amendment) Act, 2021 (the Amendment Act) has now come into force. The Amendment Act introduces a new corporate restructuring process and the concept of a dedicated 'restructuring officer' into the Cayman Islands Companies Act (2022 Revision). Under the Amendment Act, the filing of a petition for the appointment of a restructuring officer triggers an automatic global moratorium on claims against the company, giving it the opportunity to seek to implement a restructuring.
A 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its judgment dated 26 August 2022 has held that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 will prevail over the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
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
Assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”) laws are, historically, a debtor remedy. ABC laws are a voluntary debtor tool for shutting down and winding up the debtor’s failed business.
Ancient History
ABC laws began under the common law, back in merrie olde England, arising out of the law of trusts. Under trust law, any person can, without restriction, transfer assets into a trust for the benefit of one or more people.
A bankruptcy discharge releases the debtor from pre-bankruptcy debts or liabilities. The purpose is to give the debtor a “fresh start” from excessive debts that cannot be repaid, except in certain situations such as where the debt arises from deceitful or fraudulent conduct. In Poonian v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), the British Columbia Court of Appeal held that securities sanctions are excluded from bankruptcy discharge.
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