史蒂文生黄律师事务所
2021年7月27日，本所合伙人、诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师，获邀担任 “跨境争议解决之最新发展” 的专题演讲嘉宾之一。本次网络研讨会由英格兰及威尔斯律师会及香港律师会共同合办。
研讨会上，徐律师通过分析近期重大案例之关键事实和重要影响，向参与者分享和解释了香港破产和重组法的最新发展，包括承认和协助外国破产和企业救助法案等。是次研讨会反应热烈，受到了超过100 多名参与者的好评，并纷纷藉此机会就有关跨境争议及案例之分析等方面踊跃提问。
左上：香港律师会会长彭韵僖律师；右上：英格兰和威尔士律师协会国际政策顾问Catherine Brims 律师
下图：英格兰和威尔士律师协会会长 Stephanie Boyce 律师
若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师 (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com)。
近年来，随着网络技术的进一步普及和使用，网络骗案也在不断增加，甚至逐步形成产业化的趋势。许多犯罪分子利用跨区域的网络技术，对境内外的受害人实施诈骗，并要求受害人将款项转至香港的银行账户。如此，一旦骗案曝光，受害人除了向香港执法机构求助冻结相关银行账户外，亦需要循民事程序向香港法院申请披露相关银行账户的资料，以追讨被骗取的资产，保障自身的权益。
然而，在寻求披露银行账户资料的过程中，一个无法避免的环节便是银行的收费。通常情况下，受害人需要向银行支付与披露申请相关的手续费用，而银行会按照各自的内部指引进行收费。当中，不排除有些银行会收取较高额的费用，而且不同的银行的收费可能会有较大的差异。
近日，香港法庭在Hwang Joon Sang & Ors v G.E.I & Ors [2021] HKCFI 544一案中，就银行的收费进行了讨论。在该案中，涉案银行要求收取的费用包括 (1) 每个账户港币3,000元的处理费用，及 (2) 以每页港币200元收取提供文件的额外费用。原告人律师就此提出了反对，认为每页收取港币200元的费用完全过高，与另外一单于2021年4月涉及相同银行的披露申请的协定费用 (每页港币25元) 相差甚远。
针对银行的收费，高等法院原讼法庭高浩文法官认为目前的情况与法庭的基本目标 (即高等法院规则 (第4A章) 第1A号命令第1条规则的基本目标) 包括提高法庭程序的成本效益的目标相违背。高法官特别指出，银行需要自己考虑是否减少使用纸张，并通过使用电子数据库的形式提供披露资料会更加节约及环保 (more economical and environmentally friendly)。高法官进一步指出，银行亦需要考虑避免耗费不必要的时间及行政资源 (expenditure of time and administrative resources)，或至少应该最小化该等支出。
同时，高法官亦提出，「法庭认为，银行遵从披露命令并非为了牟利，银行遵从披露命令收费而采用的基数不应大过实际而且合理的费用基数。事实上，命令申请人按弥偿基准支付披露文件的费用，完全是为了确保银行收取的金额完全足够补偿 (但不能多于) 为遵从命令而引致的成本。」(“I do not think it is part of the profit making of a bank to charge for compliance with orders for disclosure on a basis greater than the actual reasonable costs of compliance. Indeed, the whole point of ordering the costs of providing disclosure to be paid on an indemnity basis, against the applicant’s undertaking to do so, is to ensure full (but no more than full) compensation for the costs of complying with the order.”)
由于在本案中银行并未就收取的费用作出解释，高法官暂时无法确定涉案银行本次提出的收费是否是合理的。虽然如此，高法官表示，「将来如果没有一套合理的方法可用，法庭可能在一些情况下会被迫考虑透过讼费评定或其他方法，找出按银行弥偿基准遵从命令而引致的成本。」(“[F]ailing a justified approach in future, it may be that the court will on some occasion be forced to consider identifying the reasonable indemnity costs for compliance with an order in any particular case, through a process of taxation or otherwise. ”)
本案中，虽然法庭并未就银行遵从披露命令而收取费用进行严格的规定及上限，但法庭明确表达了对于该等收费的态度。正如高法官所言，申请人支付银行遵从披露命令的费用是为了补偿银行的成本，而非让银行牟利。银行可能需要重新审视内部的收费指引，并且准备就其在披露申请案件中的收费向法庭提供合理理由 (如所有银行客户皆适用的收费标准、涉及的人工成本等)，以符合法庭提高法庭程序的成本效益的目标。
本文由本所合伙人，诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师、黎嘉钿高级律师和黄晊晄律师撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。
于本文中提供的一切资料仅供参考，不构成任何法律意见，资料亦受制于适用规定及法例不时的更新与修改。若需取得相关法律意见，须咨询法律顾问。
(English) In the past two decades, the Hong Kong court has gradually increased its scrutiny on the appointment of provisional liquidators for the purpose of corporate rescue and as a means to resist winding-up petitions.
In the 2003 Court of First Instance decision of Re Seapower[1], the court granted the provisional liquidators powers to facilitate a restructuring as a part of a scheme of arrangement and dismissed the winding-up petition subject to conditions.
Then in 2006, the Court of Appeal commented in Re Legend[2] that, “……the power of the court……is to appoint a liquidator or liquidators for the purposes of the winding-up, not for the purposes of avoiding the winding-up…… Restructuring is an alternative to a winding-up”.
Re Legend and subsequent cases adopting it[3] clarified that section 193 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance does not allow provisional liquidators to be appointed solely for the purpose of corporate restructuring or rescue. Rather, provisional liquidators may be allowed additional powers to restructure the subject companies if they are insolvent and their assets are in jeopardy, but the purpose of the appointment should not depart from the objective of winding-up.
An arrangement was eventually developed in response to the above clarification. Considered in detail in Re Z-Obee Holdings Limited[4], this arrangement was coined the Z-Obee technique:
In gist, a foreign company facing a winding-up petition in Hong Kong would procure the appointment of soft-touch provisional liquidators in its place of incorporation (commonly the British Virgin Islands or the Cayman Islands) to facilitate a restructuring, whereupon it would
(1) seek the Hong Kong court’s recognition of the appointment; and/or
(2) request the Hong Kong court to provide assistance to the provisional liquidators with the force of a letter of request issued by a court of its place of incorporation.
Cases leading up to Re China Bozza
In Re Lamtex[5] and Re Ping An[6], the Hong Kong court was asked to recognize foreign appointments of soft-touch provisional liquidators and provide assistance to them.
In Re Lamtex, the court refused to recognize an appointment as there was insufficient evidence of a credible restructuring plan. The subject company was wound up.
In Re Ping An, the court granted an order of recognition and assistance upon being satisfied that there was tangible prospect of restructuring. The winding-up petition was adjourned for two months. The court commented that, “the power of assistance which the court normally grants foreign soft-touch provisional liquidators is simply a consequence of recognition”[7].
One can sense a heightening caution where the Z-Obee technique was used, as the court observed in these decisions that the subject companies “were to engineer a de facto moratorium”, that it was “a questionable use of soft-touch provisional liquidation”[8], and that it had “the intention of frustrating a winding up petition issued in the company’s centre of main interest (COMI)”.
The court further commented that insolvency processes in a company’s COMI could be more efficient and effective than that in its place of incorporation where it has no connection with[9], and a more stringent approach may be adopted in similar applications for recognition and assistance in the future.[10]
The Re China Bozza decision
In the recent decision of Re China Bozza[11], the court recognized the appointment of offshore provisional liquidators “as a matter of private international law”, but in respect of the liquidators’ request for assistance, the court merely gave a general direction of “liberty to apply””: The court would not provide assistance as a matter of course. A separate application should be made with justifications.[12]
Further, the court’s recognition of an appointment of offshore provisional liquidators does not automatically entail the adjournment of the winding up petition[13].
The court will adjourn the petition only upon being satisfied that the prospect of a successful restructuring during the adjournment is justifiably strong,
“If the reality is, for example, that a company is (a) hopelessly insolvent, (b) there is no prospect of realising value from sale of its indirectly owned assets in the Mainland as they will be seized by Mainland creditors and (c) the only hope of achieving other than a de minimis return to off-shore creditors is the sale of the company to an investor, who may wish to acquire it to use as a listed vehicle for a different type of business; this should be explained and justified. Simply referring to a possible “debt restructuring” and treating the expression as a kind of magical incantation, the recitation of which will conjure up an adjournment of the petition is as inadequate as it is facile.”[14]
The court also highlighted that, to restructure a company’s debt,
(1) the appointment of a soft-touch provisional liquidator was not necessarily required;
(2) insolvency practitioners can be engaged to advise the company on restructuring and persuade the petitioning and supporting creditors and the court to adjourn the winding up petition.[15]
Creditors’ Interest is Paramount
In Re China Bozza, the court emphasized that once a company became insolvent, it had a paramount duty to consider the creditors’ interests, and the company’s directors fiduciary duties would be owed to the general body of creditors instead.[16]
Soft-touch provisional liquidators may be appointed with an intention to salvage the current shareholders’ investments in the company, often by procuring “white knight” to acquire the company’s assets[17]. In so doing, if the provisional liquidators do not appear to prioritise creditors’ interests, this may contribute to the Court’s refusal to provide assistance.[18]
The court was wary that no proper regard had been given to creditors’ interest in some recent cases. Typically, the companies would have issued low interest corporate bonds to Mainland residents. These bonds may be unattractive in terms of return, but the subscribers’ real objective would be to circumvent PRC’s exchange restrictions[19] or to apply for residency status in Hong Kong. The subscribers may not fully understood their rights and may have limited means to seek recovery.[20] In these circumstances, a soft-touch restructuring may not provide sufficient protection to the subscribers.
As such, the court will closely supervise whether the Z-Obee technique is used with sufficient regard to creditors’ interests.
Conclusion
Companies and those advising them should take heed of the court’s clear preference for the commercial approach of negotiation to the Z-Obee technique.
Procedurally, it is important to note that the court’s recognition of an appointment of offshore provisional liquidators does not automatically entail an adjournment of a winding-up petition. Instead, a strong prospect of success of restructuring needs to be demonstrated to the court to persuade it to adjourn a winding-up petition.
Please contact our Partners Mr. Osbert Hui or Mr. Dominic Lau for any enquiries or further information.
This newsletter is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.
References:
Re China Bozza Development Holdings Limited (HCMP 172/2021, Hearing Date: 15 April 2021; Date of Decision: 11 May 2021)
Re China Greenfresh Group Co Ltd (HCCW 187/2020, Hearing Date: 29 April 2021; Date of Decision: 29 April 2021)
Re China Solar Energy Holdings Ltd (HCCW 108/2015, Hearing Date: 18 August 2017; Date of Handing Down of Decision: 20 March 2018)
Re Lamtex Holdings Limited (HCCW 263/2020, Hearing Date: 28 January 2021; Date of Decision: 11 March 2021)
Re Legend International Resorts Ltd (CACV 207/2005, Hearing Date: 7-9 February 2006; Date of Handing Down Judgement: 1 March 2006)
Re Ping An Securities Group (Holdings) Limited (HCCW 217/2020 & HCMP 1810/2020, Hearing Date: 5 March 2021; Date of Decision: 12 March 2021)
Re Plus Holdings Ltd (HCCW 612/2006, Hearing Date: 17 May 2007; Date of Decision 17 May 2007)
Re Seapower Resources International Ltd (HCMP 2977/2003, Hearing Date: 14 November 2003; Date of Judgment: 14 November 2003)
Re Z-Obee Holdings Limited (HCMP 1563/2017, Date of Hearing: 31 October 2017; Date of Decision: 31 October 2017)
史蒂文生黄律师事务所欣然宣布，本所合伙人罗启峰律师 (TEP) 在国际信托及资产规划学会 (STEP) 国际信托管理文凭试中，以全球最优秀的成绩荣获STEP 卓越大奖。
STEP 卓越大奖奖旨在表彰在全球STEP资格认证中的获得最高成就之人仕与其卓越的成就。该奖项与 STEP 的核心价值一致，旨在提高水平和专业卓越。
据STEP 表示，本次获奖者 “代表了最优秀和最聪明的专业人士，他們的名字在未来将备受关注。”
关于 STEP 资格认证
STEP 资格认证被公认为私人客户和财富规划行业的指标，专业人士如会计师、律师、受托人和银行家等均通过STEP 资格认证证明其专业知识和专长。
2021年7月﹐八名来自本地及海外大学的法律系学生于本所结束为期两周的暑期实习计划。该计划旨在让法律系学生了解在律师事务所内不同领域的工作﹐并对未来的职业规划有所启发。课程中，实习生参加了由不同部门准备的的讲座，并完成了各项与法律相关的项目。在最后一天，我们对实习生们精彩活力的个人和小组演讲留下深刻的印象。
前排左起：张嘉琪律师、合伙人张源辉律师、合伙人林丽嫦律师、合伙人洪玉晖律师、实习生胡绮庭同学、实习生邓恩霖同学、实习生潘臻贤同学、实习生董浩天同学
后排左起：实习生朱俊安同学、实习生许君彦同学、实习生张乐天同学、卢建华见习律师、实习生蔡皓贤同学
我们在此祝愿我们的实习生前程錦繡！
本所合伙人林丽嫦律师凭借在知识产权领域的卓越表现和客户满意度，再度荣获IP STARS评选为 2021/22年度香港商标之星。
每年，来自香港、伦敦和纽约的 IP STARS 研究团队均会对全球数千家公司进行为期 6 个月的独立研究。在评估的过程中，分析师分别就知识产权界的执业者和公司之专业知识、工作量、市场声誉、业绩记录、为客户取得的成果，以及他们在每个业务领域的独特优势进行评估。在IP Stars中获排名的专业人仕，必须获得同业和客户的高度评价。
林丽嫦律师于2002年加入事务所，并早于1989年、1993年和1995年，分别于香港、英国和威尔斯及新加坡取得事务律师执业资格。
林律师的执业范围涵盖所有知识产权的事务。她经常为客户就各类商标选择提供专业的法律意见，协助他们解决各样疑难，当中包括分析商标合适度、选择商标，完成商标注册程序，善用企业商标，商标争议及复审、草拟和注册商标认可证、许可权合约及维护商标权益。
林律师的顾问服务网络遍布亚太区和世界各地，她的客户层面甚广，有私人企业，也有公营机构， 他们来自不同行业，当中不乏顶级的国际时装和奢侈品牌。
林律师取得亚洲专利代理人协会的成员资格，也曾经担任INTERLAW (一个国际律师事务所联会)董事会成员以及亚太区副主席，并为现任INTERLAW 多元化、包容及社区特别业务小组亚太区副主席。她也是婚姻监礼人。
关于IP Stars
自 1990 年以来，IP STARS旨在为寻求由经验丰富的法律人员提供之有关知识产权建议之公司或个人客户提供领先的资源。他们的研究、排名和分析为 151 个司法管辖区提供独立和公正的认证，井涵盖 1,645 家公司和 7,100 名执业者。