近年来，早期设立的一批外商投资企业的经营期限将近届满，同时根据原《中华人民共和国中外合资经营企业法》设立的中外合资企业的公司治理结构的弊端也日益凸显，而部分外商投资企业形成已久的公司僵局也始终不见破局之法，因此外商投资企业的解散和清算已经成为外国投资者所关注的热点话题。

《中华人民共和国外商投资法》（“《外商投资法》”）及其实施条例已经从今年1月1日开始实施，但新的法律、法规并未在内容上对外商投资企业解散和清算这一问题进行强调或注解。而随着“三资法”的废除，以公司形式设立的外商投资企业的解散和清算自然需要适用《中华人民共和国公司法》（“《公司法》”）第十章“公司解散和清算”的规定。而事实上，在《外商投资法》实施之前，外资企业在解散、清算方面已经适用了《公司法》的相关规定，只是在操作流程上较内资企业有所不同。

然而《公司法》对于解散清算的规定过于宽泛，而最高院有关企业解散清算的司法解释在实操层面又存在诸多难点和不确定性，导致外国投资者在寻求以解散清算方式撤离时面临重重困境。笔者拟通过本文对于外商投资企业解散和非破产清算一般路径以及可能面对的困难进行简要分析，从而希望对投资者在设立外商投资企业并签订相应股东协议时有所参考和提示。

In a pair of recent contrasting judgments, Re Agritrade Resources Ltd [2020] HKCFI 1967 and Re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2260, the Hong Kong Court has once again confirmed its pragmatic approach towards applications by foreign liquidators and provisional liquidators for recognition and assistance in Hong Kong. The judgments emphasize the importance of adhering to the standard forms of order adopted by the Hong Kong courts in respect of such applications, and the need for any departure from the standard form to be fully justified.

A creditor with assets in England should refrain from involvement in a foreign insolvency proceeding if it is at risk of being sued in the foreign court.

As noted in our recent insolvency law update, the Western Australian Court of Appeal has recently delivered its judgment (comprising over 1,000 pages) on one of Australia's longest running pieces of litigation: Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group (in liq) [No 3].

In Saraceni v Mentha [No.2] [2012] WASC 336 a director sought to challenge the appointment of receivers to Westgem Investments Pty Ltd ("Westgem") under a fixed and floating charge ("the Charge").  In 2008 Westgem entered into a Facility Agreement with financiers and executed the Charge, which charged the "secured property".

The plaintiff contended that:

Australian banks have historically relied on formal liquidation, voluntary administration and receivership processes available under the under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and under general law where informal restructurings have failed. There has been little appetite for exploring alternative methods to exit distressed situations by debt trading.

The recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal in Re Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2012] VSCA 202 gives liquidators comfort when disclaiming leases (as the liquidator of a landlord) pursuant to s 568(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (‘the Act’).

In the recent Court of Appeal decision of Re Willmott Forests Ltd [2012] VSC 29, the Court held that a lessee’s leasehold interest can be extinguished by a liquidator appointed to a lessor company using the disclaimer power in s 568 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act). 

Facts

Key Points:

The decision will give liquidators the certainty of knowing that disclaimer of a lease means that a tenant no longer has any interest in the land.

A recent decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal has confirmed that a liquidator of a landlord can disclaim a lease with full effect, so that the land is no longer encumbered by a tenant's interest.

On 29 August 2012, the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Court) delivered its decision in SingTel Optus Pty Limited v Weston (Costs) [2012] NSWSC 1002.  The decision confirms that a liquidator who is removed from their position will be entitled to an indemnity for costs incurred in defending the removal proceedings, unless they act improperly in those proceedings.

Background