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.
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”).
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).
Introduction
“Under the long-standing ‘solvent-debtor exception,’ plaintiffs [unsecured trade creditors] possess an equitable right to receive post-petition interest at the contractual or default state law rate, subject to any other equitable considerations, before [the debtor] collects surplus value from the bankruptcy estate,” held the Ninth Circuit on Aug. 29, 2022. In re PG&E Corporation, 2022 WL 3712498, *4 (9th Cir. Aug. 29, 2022) (2-1).
On August 11, 2022, a two-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bank of Baroda vs Parasaadilal Tursiram Sheetgrah Pvt. Ltd. has observed that the time limit of 45 (forty-five) days prescribed under Section 17 of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“Act”) is provided for quick enforcement of the security.
Brief Facts & Procedural History
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
On July 29, 2022, Laurie S.