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.
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.
Liquidators are of crucial importance where there are risks that a company is approaching the end of its operating cycle. Liquidators protect the interests of creditors and release or transfer economic value that would otherwise be trapped and sometimes lost after a winding-up. However, in two recent cases, we have seen criticism directed at liquidators by the courts in Hong Kong. This is of particular importance where liquidators are appointed by the courts as officers of the court and must uphold high standards required by that appointment and the law.
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。
Background
The regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), is largely creditor centric. In fact, extraordinary as it may sound, corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under IBC is nothing short of a puppet show, with the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) as the puppet master. The CoC, comprising of financial creditors of the corporate debtor, is paramount in terms of making the most significant decisions of the process and plays a vital role in resolving the debt.
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
In a recent judgment in the case of ABG Shipyard, the Supreme Court has decided an extremely relevant question of law concerning the liquidation process under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”).
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.
The Spanish government has very recently approved a reform of the Spanish Insolvency Law, which will enter into effect within 20 days of its publication in the Spanish Official State Journal (Boletín Oficial del Estado), except for the third book of the restated Spanish Insolvency Law, which will enter into effect on 1 January 2023.
A bankruptcy court ruled that a creditor didn’t need to seek derivative standing to sue a liquidating trustee. The creditor, himself a trustee of the debtor’s employee stock-option plan, had standing to sue without prior court permission because his suit wasn’t brought on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. In re Foods, Inc., Case No. 14-02689, Adv. Pro. No. 21-3022, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2331 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2022).