In brief
The Bankruptcy Protector
Almost two years ago, the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (SBRA) was enacted. While the provisions regarding the new Subchapter V reorganization received the most press (streamlined chapter 11 for businesses with debts of no more than $7,500,000), the SBRA also included other important changes to the Bankruptcy Code. Among these additional changes was an increase in the venue threshold under 28 U.S.C. § 1409(b) to $25,000.00 as follows:
“Since the court resumed hearings in May [2020] more than half the petitions I have heard have involved listed companies. Remarkably petitions to wind-up Hong Kong incorporated companies operating domestic businesses are currently a minority. In addition I have received weekly applications for recognition and assistance by soft-touch provisional liquidators of companies incorporated in one of the offshore jurisdictions and listed here intending to use the Z-Obee technique …”
This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’
Key Takeaways
Suppliers and subcontractors in the construction industry should be mindful of a recent unreported decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. In Carillion Canada Inc. (Re), the Court held that an automatic cash sweep of Carillion’s Ontario bank account rid the funds of their trust character leaving Carillion’s subcontractors in Canada with no proprietary claim to $22 million sitting in an overseas bank account maintained with a global bank (the “Bank”).
On May 11, 2021, the Supreme People’s Court issued the Opinion on Developing the Pilot for Recognition of and Assistance in Bankruptcy Proceedings in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (the “Pilot Opinion”). The Pilot Opinion designated the people’s courts in Shanghai, Xiamen of Fujian Province, and Shenzhen of Guangdong Province to carry out the work for the pilot recognition of and assistance in bankruptcy proceedings in Hong Kong.
2021年4月28日，最高人民法院為堅決貫徹黨中央的決策部署，立足司法審判職能，採取切實有效措施推動破產案件依法公平高效審理，助力市場主體救治和出清，服務經濟高品質發展，構建市場化、法治化、國際化營商環境，公開發佈具有代表性的破產案例。這些案例體現了我國破產制度在以下四個方面的效能：（1）促進實現資源優化配置，注重維持企業持續經營能力；（2）充分保障債權人在重大財產處分中的決策權，提升債權人的程式參與度；（3）充分尊重債權人意見，保障債權人對管理人的推薦權和更換權；（4）適用重整計畫草案表決新機制，權益未受調整或影響的債權人不參與表決。以下僅摘要介紹案例1「重慶市華源天然氣有限責任公司破產重整案」的具體內容：
In a recent opinion from the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the Dura Automotive Systems bankruptcy case,[1] Judge Karen Owens held that executory contracts cannot be impliedly assumed through course of conduct by the parties, under binding Third Circuit precedent, notwithstanding that a minority of courts outside of the Third Circuit have allowed it
In Short
The Situation: The Full Court of the Federal Court has changed industry practice in Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd v Bryant, in the matter of Gunns Limited (in liq) (receivers and managers appointed) [2021] FCAFC 64 by holding that the "peak indebtedness rule" is not available to liquidators when assessing the value of running accounts in unfair preference claims.
经营本地业务之香港注册公司的清盘呈请个案现时占少数。此外，我每周都会收到一些在离岸司法管辖区注册成立并且在本地上市的公司的“温和”临时清盘人在申请认可和协助时拟采用 Z-Obee 一案的技巧…”
--- 夏利士法官（中国汇源果汁集团有限公司案 [2020]HKCFI 2940 at [55]）（裁决日期：2020 年 11 月 19 日）
跨境破产在香港日益活跃。以上引述的一段话说明了香港公司法院原讼法庭处理的清盘和破产程序案件很大部分源于申请承认及向外国清盘人提供协助。
早前发布的客户简报（原文见此处）探讨了向香港法院申请将外国公司强制清盘的问题。本客户简报考虑另一个问题， 就是香港法院对该外国公司注册成立的司法管辖区所发出的清盘令可以给予的承认和协助。
一般原则 香港並非《联合国国际贸易法委员会国际商事仲裁示范法》(UNCITRAL Model Law)的签署方，也没有制定该法例。承认和协助外国破产程序的权力源自普通法。
以下为典型的事实例子：一家无力偿债的公司在香港境外（通常为热门的离岸司法管辖区）注册成立但其资产位于香港。该公司的海外注册地批准就清盘呈请颁布清盘令，并任命临时清盘人。临时清盘人随后向香港法院申请“承认”该海外命令，使该清盘令通过香港法院授予的“协助”在香港具有域外适用性。