This week’s TGIF considers In the matter of Nicolas Criniti Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) [2022] NSWSC 1149 which examined the intersection between the winding up provisions in the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 1999 (NSW).
Key takeaways
Restructuring and Insolvency analysis: The respondents to a claim brought by the joint liquidators of BHS Group companies have successfully struck out parts of claims brought under sections 212 and 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) on the basis of open-ended pleadings as to the relevant date of knowledge that insolvent liquidation was inevitable and trading should have ceased.
Chandler v Wright and others [2022] EWHC 2205 (Ch)
What are the practical implications of this case?
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.
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
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。
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.
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.