内陆与香港破产程序概述（二）

内陆管理人制度概述

一、导言

管理人是指在破产案件受理后，在法院的指导和监督之下全面接管债务人企业并负责债务人财产的保管、处置、分配等事务的专门机构。管理人是破产程序中最重要的机构之一，管理各项破产具体事务。《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（以下简称“《企业破产法》”）第二十二、二十三条规定，管理人由人民法院指定，依照《企业破产法》规定执行职务，向人民法院报告工作，并接受债权人会议和债权人委员会的监督。

二、管理人的选任

（一）管理人选任范围

《企业破产法》第二十四条规定，管理人可以由有关部门、机构的人员组成的清算组或者依法设立的律师事务所、会计师事务所、破产清算事务所等社会中介机构担任。人民法院根据债务人的实际情况，可以在征询有关社会中介机构的意见后，指定该机构具备相关专业知识并取得执业资格的人员担任管理人。具体来讲，管理人的选任范围主要包括以下三类：

1. 由有关部门、机构的人员组成的清算组

根据《最高人民法院关于审理企业破产案件指定管理人的规定》（以下简称“《指定管理人规定》”）第十八条的规定，可以指定清算组担任管理人的主要包括以下三类：第一，在破产申请受理前，根据有关规定债务人已经成立清算组，人民法院也认为清算组构成符合相关规定；第二，国有企业政策性破产案件；第三，有关法律规定企业破产时成立清算组的，如商业银行的破产。

2. 律师事务所、会计师事务所、破产清算事务所等中介机构

实践中，此类中介机构具有专业的清算知识，相对独立中立的地位，选任此类机构为管理人是最普遍的做法。

3. 中介机构中具备相关专业知识并取得执业资格的个人

除了清算组和中介机构外，《指定管理人规定》还规定，对于事实清楚、债权债务公司简单、债务人财产相对集中的企业破产案件，法院可以指定中介机构中具备相关专业知识并取得执业资格的个人担任管理人。

（二）管理人名册制度

《企业破产法》第二十二条规定，管理人由人民法院指定。为便于法院指定管理人，保证管理人队伍的素质和能力，《指定管理人规定》第二条规定，高级人民法院应当根据本辖区律师事务所、会计师事务所、破产清算事务所等社会中介机构及专职从业人员数量和企业破产案件数量，确定由本院或者所辖中级人民法院编制管理人名册。人民法院应当分别编制社会中介机构管理人名册和个人管理人名册。符合企业破产法规定条件的社会中介机构及其具备相关专业知识并取得执业资格的人员，均可申请编入管理人名册。实践中，目前各省的法院都编制了本地区的管理人名册，法院在指定管理人时，原则上从管理人名册中指定。

（三）管理人指定办法

根据《指定管理人规定》，目前管理人的指定有随机方式、竞争方式、接受推荐三种方式。

第一，随机方式。随机产生是一般破产案件指定管理人的主要方式，主要通过摇号、轮候、抽签等方式选任。

第二，竞争方式。《指定管理人规定》第二十一条规定，对于商业银行、证券公司、保险公司等金融机构或者在全国范围有重大影响、法律关系复杂、债务人财产分散的企业破产案件，人民法院可以采取公告的方式，邀请编入各地人民法院管理人名册中的社会中介机构参与竞争，从参与竞争的社会中介机构中指定管理人。

第三，接受推荐方式。对于经过行政清理、清算的商业银行、证券公司、保险公司等金融机构的破产案件，人民法院除可以指定清算组为管理人外，也可以在金融监督管理机构推荐的已编入管理人名册的社会中介机构中指定管理人。

（四）管理人的更换

管理人被选任后，若出现不能依法、公正执行职务或者有其他不能胜任职务情形的，如与本案有利害关系、履职出现故意或重大过失导致债权人利益遭受损害等，法院可以根据债权人会议的申请或者依职权径行更换管理人。

三、管理人的职责

《企业破产法》第二十五条对管理人的职责作出了明确规定，具体包括如下方面：（一）接管债务人的财产、印章和账簿、文书等资料；（二）调查债务人财产状况，制作财产状况报告；（三）决定债务人的内部管理事务；（四）决定债务人的日常开支和其他必要开支；（五）在第一次债权人会议召开之前，决定继续或者停止债务人的营业；（六）管理和处分债务人的财产；（七）代表债务人参加诉讼、仲裁或者其他法律程序；（八）提议召开债权人会议；（九）人民法院认为管理人应当履行的其他职责。

四、管理人报酬

管理人报酬是指管理人因付出劳动而获得的纯报酬，不包括因执行职务所需支付的其他费用，管理人报酬从债务人财产中优先支付。根据《最高人民法院关于审理企业破产案件确定管理人报酬的规定》（以下简称“管理人报酬规定”）第二条，管理人报酬是依据债务人最终清偿的财产价值总额，在一定的比例限制范围内分段确定，如财产不超过一百万元部分，在12%以下部分确定。

根据《管理人报酬规定》第十二条，管理人报酬从债务人财产中优先支付。债务人财产不足以支付管理人报酬和管理人执行职务费用的，管理人应当提请人民法院终结破产程序。

依据上述规定，对于“无产可破”的案件，管理人虽然进行了许多工作，但是无法获得报酬。为解决此问题，内陆许多地区建立了“破产案件管理人援助资金制度”，以补贴无财产可供支付管理人报酬的破产案件管理人。援助资金多是从政府财政拨款及大型破产案件管理人报酬中按一定比例提取获得。

五、管理人责任

《企业破产法》第二十七条规定，管理人应当勤勉尽责，忠实执行职务。同时第一百三十条规定，管理人未依照《企业破产法》规定勤勉尽责、忠实执行职务的，人民法院可以依法处以罚款；给债权人、债务人或者第三人造成损失的，依法承担赔偿责任。

香港清盘人制度概述

一、导言

清盘人通常是在公司生命周期结束时介入的。清盘人的角色包括调查公司倒闭的原因；收集、保护及变现公司资产；及根据法定分配规则分配变现所得款项。因此，香港的清盘人制度强调确保财务困境企业的清盘以公平、有序的方式进行，并在熟悉清盘程序及规则的专业人士的管控及监督下进行。

二、清盘人的委任

（一）委任的先决条件

任何人只要其具有《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（第32章）（“CWUMPO”）项下委任的资格，即可获委任或被提名为清盘人。但亦有若干例外；以下人士不得获委任为清盘人：[1][2]

1. 法人团体；

2. 未清偿破产债务；

3. 根据 CWUMPO第 IVA部项下受取消资格令之人士（除非获法院许可）;

4. 根据《精神健康条例》（第136章）（“MHO”）被裁定因精神上无行为能力而无能力管理及管理其财产及事务之人士；

5. 根据 MHO项下受监护令之人士；

6. 公司的债权人或债务人；

7. 公司的董事（或前任董事）;

8. 公司的公司秘书（或前任公司秘书）;

9. 公司的审计师或在公司清盘开始前两年内曾担任公司审计师的人士；及

10. 公司财产的任何接管人或管理人。

此外，清盘人候选人须制作及提交一份披露声明，确认其并非无资格，并披露其与公司的相关关系或联系，例如在作出该声明前两年内其是否为公司的成员、债权人、债务人、董事或雇员。如存在任何等关系，相关详情及认为无利益冲突的理由应在披露声明中清楚说明。这些规定确保清盘人不仅是独立的，而且被视为独立的。[3][4]

该

（二）委任程序

在公司清盘的情况下，可委任三种类型的清盘人：

1. 临时清盘人，其获委任在法院提交清盘申请至批准清盘令期间维持公司现状及保护公司资产。此类型的清盘人通常在公司财产面临风险的情况下，或有控制者被指侵占或浪费公司资产的情况下，或有任何其他正当理由的情况下使用。在清盘申请提交后，法院可应申请人的申请，随时委任该等清盘人；[5][6]

2. 临时清盘人，自法院作出清盘令时起，直至该人或其他人士成为清盘人并有能力担任清盘人为止，提供临时破产管理服务。该角色通常在法院作出清盘令后自动由官方接管人担任，官方接管人为香港的官方破产管理人，除非在清盘令作出前，已委任其他人士为临时清盘人，在此情况下，该等人士仍为临时清盘人；[7]

3. 被清盘公司的债权人/股东或法院在批准清盘令后委任的清盘人。

（三）委任临时清盘人与清盘人的小组计划

就简易程序案件而言，如果公司的财产价值不太可能超过200,000港元，作为临时清盘人的接管人可根据“Panel T”计划指定私人破产执业人员作为连带清盘人取代接管人。注册会计师事务所、律师事务所和公司秘书事务所中至少有两名具有充分破产工作经验的接受者，可通过接管人办公室（“ORO”）每两年进行招标，申请被列入 Panel T的名册。被列入“Panel T”名册的事务所将轮流被委任为简易程序案件的清盘人。

就规模较大的“非简易程序”清算而言，如果已清盘公司的财产价值可能超过200,000港元，则 ORO需要在清盘令作出后的3个月内分别召集债权人和出资人（即股东）会议，以决定是否向法院申请委任清盘人。在首次债权人和出资人会议上，将就选择将被委任以取代接管人的清盘人通过决议。如果债权人和出资人没有提名清盘人， 则ORO将解释其“Panel A”计划，并向债权人和出资人推荐“Panel A”名册上下一家合格的事务所的人选，以供其委任为清盘人。与“Panel T”计划不同的是，只有具备充分破产工作经验和资源的会计师事务所才能被 ORO接纳进入“Panel A”名册。在首次债权人和出资人会议召开后，接管人将向法院报告每次会议的结果。如果债权人和出资人对清盘人的选择一致，则法院将根据接管人的申请，指定被选定的清盘人。在任何其他情况下，法院将确定时间和地点以解决差异（如有），并在必要时作出裁定。[8][9][10][11]

在成员自愿清盘（即由有偿付能力公司的股东发起清盘）的情况下，清盘人的指定更为直接；公司股东仅需在股东大会上通过普通决议指定清盘人，而不需要法院或 ORO介入。

（四）清盘人解散

有时，对被解散公司的资产有利害关系者的利益要求解散清盘人。在这种情况下，在向法院申请时，如果情况表明解散清盘人是适当的，法院有很大的自由裁量权来解散清盘人。法院可以根据“显示的原因”行使其权力。解散清盘人的一般理由包括偏见、不当行为、渎职、不称职、无能力或未能履行其职责，或丧失对其职业判断的信心，以至于法院对其失去信任。即使清盘人没有个人不当行为或不称职行为，例如清算可以由其他人以更低的成本或更有效的方式进行，清盘人也可以被解散。[12][13][14]

在成员自愿清盘的情况下，股东仅需在股东大会上通过特别决议将清盘人从办公室撤换，但需向债权人和清盘人发出通知并说明其提议该等决议的意图。无需证明免职的“原因”。

三、清盘人责任、权力和职责

（一）清盘人的角色

在清盘过程中，清盘人享有特殊地位，承担多种角色。

首先，清盘人作为公司的代理人行事。一旦被指定，清盘人将接替公司董事的职位，全面控制公司。清盘人代表公司行事，并将使公司受代理原则约束。

其次，清盘人被视为在其控制下的公司资产的受托人，对公司和债权人负有信托责任。换而言之，清盘人在处理公司资产的过程中应诚实、谨慎、勤勉地行事，善意地行事。与董事应尽的谨慎责任类似，清盘人在相关情况下应尽到合理技能的清盘人应尽的谨慎标准。例如，人们期望清盘人密切关注公司文件的细节，在适当履行其结束公司事务的职责的过程中控制并参与公司财产。如果清盘人未能运用其职业判断并确定公司资产的真实价值，导致变现收益少于其在通过合理技能、谨慎和勤勉出售资产时应变现的收益，则清盘人将构成失职。信托责任也禁止清盘人从其职务中获取秘密利润。

再次，如果清盘人在强制清盘案件中被指定，则清盘人将被视为法院的一名高级职员，并被赋予法院公正恰当履行其职责的声誉。就此而言，清盘人应遵循的标准不低于法院或法官的标准。因此，清盘人有义务不隐瞒任何对在法院前查明真实情况至关重要的事情，并应避免可能妨碍其履行法律和信托责任的任何可能的利益冲突。在存在利益冲突的情况下，清盘人应向法院申请辞职。[15]

（二）清盘人的责任

清盘人的主要责任是根据清盘令妥善管理公司财产，并根据关于优先分配的法定规则向债权人和股东分配可用资产。清盘人必须调查公司事务，以确定并获得公司资产以向债权人和股东支付。清盘人的一些责任是行政性质的。例如，清盘人还被要求提供法律要求的所有法定申报，并维持清盘人的记录，保管账目、账簿和文件。在适当的情况下，清盘人可以以公司的名义对那些对公司犯下错误的人提起法律诉讼，审查高级职员的行为并向 ORO报告以取消清盘人的资格。

（三）清盘人的权力

为使清盘人能够恰当地履行其职责，法律授予清盘人以下一般权力，这些权力的行使无需得到法院的批准：

1. 以公开拍卖或私人合同的方式出售公司的不动产或动产；

2. 以公司的名义并代表公司实施所有行为并签署所有契约、收据和其他文件，并为此目的在必要时使用公司印章；

3. 在任何出资人破产时，为其财产的任何余额证明、排序和主张，并有权就该余额作为破产人或资不抵债的独立债务而获得破产红利，并与其他独立债权人按比例分配；

4. 委托代理人处理清盘人不能亲自处理的任何业务；

5. 雇佣一名律师协助清盘人履行清盘人的职责。

经法院或监察委员会的批准，清盘人可进一步行使以下权力：[16]

1. 代表公司提起任何诉讼或法律程序或进行抗辩；

2. 在对公司进行有利的解散所必要的范围内，开展公司业务；

3. 向任何类别的债权人全额支付；

4. 与债权人达成任何妥协或安排。

无论清盘人行使的权力是否得到法院或监察委员会的批准，这些权力都应服从于法院的全面控制。任何股东或债权人均可就这些权力的任何行使或计划行使向法院申请。

四、报酬和费用

清盘人有权就其在公司清算过程中提供的服务获得合理的报酬。一般而言，清盘人应根据资产变现的百分比或根据与监察委员会或法院达成的协议确定的其他方式获得报酬。在实践中，报酬通常是根据所花费的时间，根据 ORO批准的标准确定的。由于清盘人对公司的变现资产主张报酬和费用，如果公司的资产不足以支付清盘人的费用，清盘人通常会与公司的一个或多个债权人达成融资协议。如果有两个或两个以上的清盘人，他们的报酬应根据监察委员会或法院确定的比例进行分配。如果破产事务官认为与监察委员会达成协议确定的报酬需要重新审查，其可向法院申请扣减该报酬的命令。[17]

如前所述，清盘人在适当履行其职责的过程中负有善意和公正行事的受托责任。除 CWUMPO或 CWUR另有规定外，清盘人不得从任何律师、拍卖人或与其作为清盘人的公司有关的任何人或在破产公司中受雇的人或与破产公司有关的任何人处接受超出其根据法令可获得的报酬的任何礼物或利益。禁止接受礼物的规则确保了破产从业人员的决策或专业判断不会受到其他方的不当影响。

Introduction to the Mainland Administrator System

I、Introduction

An administrator refers to a specialized institution that, under the guidance and supervision of the court, takes over the debtor's enterprise and is responsible for the custody, disposal and distribution of the debtor's property. An administrator is one of the most important institutions in the bankruptcy proceedings and is responsible for managing various bankruptcy affairs. According to Articles 22 and 23 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as the 'Enterprise Bankruptcy Law'), an administrator shall be appointed by the people's court to perform its duties in accordance with the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, report its work to the people's court and accept the supervision of the creditors' meeting and the creditors' committee.

II、 Appointment of an administrator

(I) Scope of appointment of an administrator

According to Article 24 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, an administrator may be a liquidation team composed of personnel from relevant departments and institutions or a duly established social intermediary such as a law firm, accounting firm or bankruptcy liquidation firm. The people's court may, in light of the debtor's actual circumstances and after consulting with the relevant social intermediary, appoint a qualified practitioner with relevant professional knowledge to act as an administrator. Specifically, the scope of appointment of an administrator includes the following three categories:

a)A liquidation group composed of personnel from relevant departments and institutions; and

According to Article 18 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Appointment of an Administrator in Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases (hereinafter referred to as the 'Provisions on the Appointment of an Administrator'), a liquidation team may be appointed as an administrator in the following three categories: (1) a liquidation team has been established by the debtor in accordance with the relevant provisions prior to the acceptance of a bankruptcy application and the people's court deems that the composition of the liquidation team complies with the relevant provisions; (2) a policy-based bankruptcy case of a state-owned enterprise; and (3) a liquidation team is required by the relevant laws and regulations to be established when an enterprise goes bankrupt, such as the bankruptcy of a commercial bank.

b)Intermediaries such as law firms, accounting firms and bankruptcy liquidation firms, etc.

In practice, it is the most common practice for such intermediaries to be appointed as administrators as they possess professional liquidation knowledge and are relatively independent and neutral.

c) Individuals with the relevant professional knowledge and practicing qualifications in intermediaries.

In addition to liquidation teams and intermediaries, the Provisions on the Appointment of an Administrator also provides that, for an enterprise bankruptcy case with clear facts, simple creditor's rights and debts, and relatively concentrated assets of the debtor, the court may appoint an individual with relevant professional knowledge and practice qualifications from intermediaries to act as an administrator.

(II) Administrator register system

According to Article 22 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, an administrator shall be appointed by the people's court. To facilitate the appointment of an administrator by the people's court and ensure the quality and capability of an administrator team, Article 2 of the Provisions on the Appointment of an Administrator provides that a higher people's court shall, based on the number of law firms, accounting firms, bankruptcy liquidation firms and other social intermediaries as well as their full-time employees and the number of enterprise bankruptcy cases within its jurisdiction, determine whether an administrator register shall be compiled by the court or an intermediate People's Court under its jurisdiction. The people's court shall compile a separate register of social intermediaries and individual administrators. Any social intermediary that meets the requirements of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law and any of its personnel with relevant professional knowledge and practice qualifications may apply to be listed in the bankruptcy Administrator Register. In practice, the courts of all provinces have compiled a register of administrators for their respective jurisdictions. When appointing administrators, the courts shall, in principle, appoint administrators from the register of administrators.

(III) appointment of an administrator

According to the Provisions on the Appointment of Managers, there are currently three ways to appoint managers: random, competitive and accepted recommendation.

Appointment of an administrator. Random selection is the main method for appointment of an administrator for a general bankruptcy case. An administrator is selected and appointed mainly by means of lottery, waiting by turns, drawing lots or otherwise.

Appointment appointment An administrator. Article 21 of the Provisions on the Appointment of Managers provides that, in relation to an enterprise bankruptcy case involving a financial institution such as a commercial bank, a securities company or an insurance company, etc, or an enterprise bankruptcy case which has a significant impact nationwide, complex legal relationship and dispersed assets of the debtor, the People's Court may, by way of public announcement, invite social intermediaries listed in the register of administrators of People's Courts of various regions to participate in a competition, and appoint a manager from the competing social intermediaries.

Third way Method Recommended. For a bankruptcy case involving a commercial bank, a securities company, an insurance company or any other financial institution that has undergone administrative liquidation, the People's Court may, in addition to appointing the liquidation team as the manager, appoint a social intermediary that has been listed in a register of administrators and recommended by the financial regulatory authorities as the manager.

(IV) Replacement of an administrator

If an administrator is unable to perform its duties fairly or incompetently in accordance with the law or is otherwise incompetent, for example, the administrator has an interest in the case or intentionally or grossly negligently performs its duties, which harms the interests of creditors, the court may replace the administrator upon the request of the creditors' meeting or in accordance with its authority.

III、 Administrator's duties

Article 25 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law specifies the following duties of an administrator: (1) to take over the debtor's property, seals, accounting books, documents and other materials; (2) to investigate the debtor's financial status and prepare financial status reports; (3) to determine the debtor's internal management matters; (4) to determine the daily expenses and other necessary expenses of the debtor; (5) to decide on the continuation or suspension of the debtor's business before the first creditors' meeting is convened; (6) to manage and dispose of the debtor's property; (7) to participate in litigation, arbitration or other legal proceedings on behalf of the debtor; (8) to propose the convening of creditors' meetings; and (9) other duties that the People's Court deems necessary to be performed by the administrator.

IV、 Administrator's remuneration

An administrator's remuneration refers to the net remuneration received by an administrator for his/her services, excluding other expenses necessary for performing its duties. An administrator's remuneration shall be paid from the debtor's property in priority. According to Article 2 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on the Determination of Administrator's Remuneration in Hearing Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases (hereinafter referred to as the 'Provisions on Administrator's Remuneration'), an administrator's remuneration shall be determined in stages within a certain range based on the final total value of the debtor's property. For example, for the portion of the property not exceeding RMB1 million, the remuneration shall be determined below 12%.

According to Article 12 of the Provisions on Administrator's Remuneration, an administrator's remuneration shall be paid from the debtor's property in priority. If the debtor's property is insufficient to pay the administrator's remuneration and the expenses incurred in performing its duties, the administrator shall apply to the People's Court for termination of bankruptcy proceedings.

According to the above provisions, an administrator will not receive remuneration for a lot of work in an 'insolvent' case. To solve this problem, many regions in the mainland have established a 'bankruptcy administrator aid fund system' to subsidize bankruptcy administrators who have no property to pay the administrator's remuneration. Most of the aid funds are derived from government financial allocations and administrator's remuneration for large-scale bankruptcy cases at a certain percentage.

V、 Administrator's responsibilities

Article 27 of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law provides that an administrator shall perform its duties diligently and faithfully. Article 130 provides that an administrator who fails to perform its duties diligently and faithfully in accordance with the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law may be subject to a fine imposed by the People's Court in accordance with the law; and shall be liable for compensation for any loss caused to creditors, debtors or third parties.

Introduction to the Liquidator System in Hong Kong

I、Introduction

A liquidator is usually involved at the end of a company’s life cycle. The role of a liquidator includes investigating the reasons why a company has failed; collecting, protecting, and realising the company’s assets; and distributing the proceeds of realisation in accordance with the statutory rules of distribution. The liquidator regime in Hong Kong thus places an emphasis on ensuring that the winding-up of financially distressed businesses would be conducted in a fair and orderly manner and under the control and oversight of professionals conversant with the winding-up process and rules.

II、Appointment

(I).Pre-requisites of appointment

Any person may be appointed, or nominated for appointment, as liquidator as long as he is not disqualified from appointment under the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap. 32) (“CWUMPO”)[18]. There are certain exceptions; the following persons are not allowed to be appointed as a liquidator[19]:

(a)Bodies corporate;

(b)Undischarged bankrupts;

(c)Persons subject to a disqualification order under Part IVA of CWUMPO (save with leave of the Court);

(d)Persons found under the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136) (“MHO”) to be incapable, by reason of mental incapacity, of managing and administering the person’s property and affairs;

(e)Persons subject to a guardianship order under MHO;

(f)Creditors or debtors of the company;

(g)Directors (or former directors) of the company;

(h)Company secretary (or former company secretary) of the company;

(i)Auditors of the company or a person who was auditor of the company within the 2 year period before commencement of winding up; and

(j)Any receiver or manager of property of the company.

Further, a liquidator candidate has to make and deliver a disclosure statement[20] confirming that he is not disqualified and disclose his relevant relationships or connections with the company[21], such as where he was a member, creditor, debtor, director or employee of the company within the 2 years before the making of the statement. Where there is any such relationship, the relevant details together with the reasons for belief of no conflict of interests should be clearly stated in the disclosure statement. These requirements ensure that a liquidator is not only independent but also seen to be so.

(II).Procedures of appointment

Three types of liquidators may be appointed in a case of winding-up of a company:

(a)a provisional liquidator who is appointed to preserve the status quo and protect assets of a company in the interval between the presentation of a winding-up petition and the grant of a winding-up order by the Court[22]. This type of liquidator is usually involved in cases where the property of the company is at risk, or it is alleged that those in control are misappropriating or wasting its assets or any other good cause exists[23]. His appointment may be made by the Court on application by the petitioner at any time after the presentation of a winding-up petition;

(b)a provisional liquidator who provides interim insolvency management services from the time the Court makes a winding-up order and until he or another person becomes liquidator and is capable of acting as such. This role is usually assumed by the Official Receiver, Hong Kong’s official insolvency administrator, automatically after the making of a winding-up order by the Court[24], unless, prior to the winding order, a different person has been appointed as the provisional liquidator, in which case, that person shall remain as provisional liquidator; and

(c)a liquidator who is appointed by the creditors/shareholders of the company being wound up or the Court following the grant of a winding-up order:

(III).Panel Scheme for appointment of provisional liquidators / liquidators

For summary cases where the property of the company is not likely to exceed HK$200,000 in value, the Official Receiver as provisional liquidator may appoint private insolvency practitioners under the “Panel T” scheme as joint and several liquidators in place of the Official Receiver. Firms of certified public accountants, solicitors and company secretaries with at least two appointment takers who have sufficient insolvency work experience may apply to be included a Panel T roster list through a tender exercise conducted by the Official Receiver’s Office (“ORO”) every two years. Firms admitted to the “Panel T” list will be appointed as liquidators in summary cases on a rotation basis.

As for larger “non-summary” liquidations, where the property of the wound-up company is likely to exceed in value HK$200,000, the ORO is required to convene separate meetings of creditors and contributories (i.e. shareholders) within 3 months of the date of making of the winding-up order[25] for the purposes of determining whether or not an application is to be made to the Court for appointing a liquidator[26]. At the first meetings of creditors and contributories, resolutions on the choice of liquidator to be appointed in place of the Official Receiver would be passed. Where no nomination of liquidators has been put forth by the creditors and contributories, the ORO would explain its “Panel A” scheme and recommend the candidates of the next eligible firm on the “Panel A” roster list to the creditors and contributories for appointment as liquidators. In contrast with the “Panel T” scheme, only accounting firms with sufficient insolvency work experience and resources may be admitted by the ORO to the “Panel A” roster list. After the first meetings of creditors and contributories have been held, the Official Receiver will report the result of each meeting to the Court[27]. If the choice of liquidator by the creditors and contributories is identical, the Court may then, upon the application of the Official Receiver, appoint the chosen liquidator. In any other case the Court will fix a time and place for deciding the differences (if any) and making such order as shall be necessary[28].

Appointment of liquidators in cases of a members’ voluntary winding-up (i.e. one that is initiated by shareholders of a solvent company) is more straightforward; the shareholders of the company may simply pass an ordinary resolution in a general meeting for the appointment of the liquidators, without any involvement of the Court or the ORO.

(IV).Removal

At times, the interest of those who are interested in the assets of the company being wound up may demand the removal of liquidators. In this regard, on application to the Court, the Court retains a wide discretion to remove a liquidator if the circumstances indicate that the removal is proper and appropriate. The Court’s power is exercisable “on cause shown”[29]. General grounds for removal include bias, misconduct, dereliction of duty, unfitness, inability or failure to carry out his duty, or loss of confidence in his professional judgment to such a degree as will forfeit the confidence of the Court[30]. Liquidators may also be removed even where no personal misconduct or unfitness is established against them[31], such as where the winding up can be conducted more cheaply or more effectively by some other person.

In a members’ voluntary winding-up, shareholders may simply pass a special resolution in the general meeting to remove a liquidator from office, after giving notice to the creditors and the liquidator specifying the intention to propose such a resolution. There is no need to show “cause” for the removal.

III、Responsibilities, powers and duties

(I).Roles

In the course of a winding-up, a liquidator enjoys a special status and assumes composite roles.

First, he acts as an agent of the company. Once appointed, the liquidator steps into the shoes of the directors of the company and assumes overall control over the company. His acts on behalf of the company and will bind the company on principles of agency.

Second, a liquidator is deemed to be a trustee of the company assets under his control and owes fiduciary duties towards the company and the creditors. In other words, the liquidator is expected to act honestly, with due care and diligence, and in good faith in dealing with the company’s assets. Analogous to the duty of care owed by directors, the standard of care expected of a liquidator is that of a reasonably skilled liquidator in the circumstances. For example, a liquidator is expected to pay real attention to the details of the company’s documentation and take control and get in the company’s property in the proper discharge of his duties to wind up affairs of the company. A liquidator will be negligent if he fails to exercise a professional judgment and ascertain the true value of the company’s assets such that the proceeds realized are less than those which should be realized were reasonable skill, care and diligence exercised in the asset sale. The fiduciary duties also prohibit a liquidator from making a secret profit out of his office.

Third, if the liquidator is appointed in a case of compulsory winding-up, he is considered an officer of the Court and is entrusted with the reputation of the Court for impartial and proper dispatch of his duties. In that regard, no lesser standard is to be expected of him than of a Court or judge[32]. As such, he is duty bound not to conceal anything that is material to ascertain the exact truth before the Court, and shall steer clear of any possible conflict of interest which may impede his discharge of legal and fiduciary duties. In the event of conflict of interest, he should apply to the Court for leave to resign.

(II).Responsibilities

The primary responsibility of a liquidator is to properly administer the estate of the company subject to a winding-up order and distribute the available assets to creditors and shareholders in accordance with the statutory rules on priority of distribution. The liquidator must probe into the company affairs, with a view to identifying and obtaining the company’s assets for paying creditors and shareholders. Some responsibilities of the liquidator are administrative in nature. For example, the liquidator is also required to make all statutory returns required by law and maintain liquidator’s record, keep accounts, books and papers. In appropriate cases, the liquidator may commence legal action in the name of the company against those who committed wrongs against the company and examine conduct of officers and make report to ORO for disqualification purpose.

(III).Powers

To enable a liquidator to properly discharge his duties, the statue confers on the liquidator the following general powers, which are exercisable without sanction of the Court:

(1)Sell the real and personal property of the company by public auction or private contract;

(2)Do all acts and to execute, in the name and on behalf of the company, all deeds, receipts and other documents, and for that purpose to use, when necessary, the company’s seal;

(3)Prove, rank and claim in the bankruptcy of any contributory, for any balance against his estate, and to receive dividends in the bankruptcy in respect of that balance as a separate debt due from the bankrupt or insolvent, and rateably with the other separate creditors;

(4)Appoint an agent to do any business that the liquidator is unable to do in person; and

(5)Employ a solicitor to assist the liquidator in performing the liquidator’s duties.

With the sanction of the Court or a committee of inspection[33], a liquidator may further exercise the following powers:

(1)Commence or defend any action or proceeding for and on behalf of the company;

(2)Carry on the business of the company, so far as may be necessary for its beneficial winding-up;

(3)Pay any classes of creditors in full; and

(4)Make any compromise or arrangement with creditors

Irrespective of whether the powers exercised by the liquidator are exercisable with or without sanction of the Court or the committee of inspection, they are subject to the overarching control of the Court. Any shareholder or creditor may apply to the Court in respect of any exercise or proposed exercise of these powers.

IV、Remuneration and costs

A liquidator is entitled to reasonable remuneration for the services rendered in the course of winding up the company. In general, he should be paid by a percentage of assets realized or otherwise as determined by agreement with the committee of inspection or by the Court, as the case may be. In practice, the remuneration is usually determined on a time-spent basis, in accordance with the standard rates approved by the ORO[34]. Since a liquidator claims remuneration and expenses against the company’s assets realized, in case where the company has insufficient assets for paying the liquidator’s fees, it is common for him to enter into a funding arrangement with one or more creditors of the company. If there are two or more liquidators, their remuneration ought to be distributed in such proportions as determined by the committee of inspection or by the Court, as the case may be. If the Official Receiver considers that the remuneration determined by agreement with the committee of inspection should be reviewed, it may apply to the Court for an order of reduction of the remuneration.

As aforesaid, a liquidator is under fiduciary duties to act in good faith and with impartiality in the proper discharge of his/her roles. Except as provided by CWUMPO or CWUR, he must not accept from any solicitor, auctioneer, or any person connected with the company of which he is liquidator or who is employed in or in connection with the insolvent company, any gift or benefit beyond the remuneration he may receive under statute. The rule against accepting gifts ensures that an insolvency practitioner will not have his decision-making or professional judgment unduly influenced by other parties.

[1]CWUMPO第262 B条。

[2]上述禁止规定不适用于官方接管人，及就（f）至（i）项而言，其不适用于成员自愿清盘（即由有偿付能力公司的股东发起的清盘）: CWUMPO第262 B （2）及（3）条。

[3]CWUMPO第262 D条。

[4]此项规定不适用于成员自愿清盘、官方接管人或被官方接管人委任为临时清盘人的人士：CWUMPO第262 C（1）条。

[5]CWUMPO第193条；关于 Legend International Resorts Ltd.(01/03/2006,CACV210/2005)[2006]2 HKLRD 192，第27段。

[6]关于 Five Lakes Investment Co Ltd.(26/10/1983,HCCW79/1983)，第48段；关于 Maintain Profits Ltd.(31/10/2002,HCCW345/2002)[2003]2 HKLRD 237，第29段。

[7]CWUMPO第194 （1）条

[8]《公司（清盘）规则》（第32 H章）（“CWUR”）第106条。

[9]CWUMPO第194 (1)(b）条。

[10]CWUR第45 （1）条。

[11]CWUR第45 （2）条。

[12]CWUMPO第196条。

[13]Allied Ever Holdings Ltd诉 Li Shu Chung and Others (27/11/2017,HCCW497/2009)，第5-6段。

[14]Allied Ever Holdings Ltd诉 Li Shu Chung and Others (27/11/2017,HCCW497/2009)，第3段。

[15]关于 Legend International Resorts Ltd （强制清算中）(07/03/2011,HCCW1139/2004)，第30段。

[16]在债权人和出资人的首次会议之后任命一个监察委员会，该委员会由债权人和需要对公司资产出资的人组成。该委员会的职能是协助监督清盘人行使权力。

[17]参见：

https://www./pdf/eng/publications/panel_a_scheme_rules_annexC. pdf

[18]Section 262B of CWUMPO.

[19]The prohibition does not apply to the Official Receiver and, for items (f) to (i), they do not apply in relation to a members’ voluntary winding-up (i.e. one that is initiated by shareholders of a solvent company): Section 262B(2) and (3) of CWUMPO.

[20]Section 262D of CWUMPO.

[21]This requirement does not apply in relation to a members’ voluntary winding up, the Official Receiver or a person who is appointed as provisional liquidator by the Official Receiver: section 262C(1) of CWUMPO.

[22]Section 193 of CWUMPO; Re Legend International Resorts Ltd (01/03/2006, CACV210/2005) [2006] 2 HKLRD 192 at §27.

[23]Re Five Lakes Investment Co Ltd (26/10/1983, HCCW79/1983) at §48; Re Maintain Profits Ltd. (31/10/2002, HCCW345/2002) [2003] 2 HKLRD 237 at §29.

[24]Section 194(1) of CWUMPO.

[25]Rule 106 of the Companies (Winding-Up) Rules (Cap. 32H) (“CWUR”).

[26]Section 194(1)(b) of CWUMPO.

[27]Rule 45(1) of CWUR.

[28]Rule 45(2) of CWUR.

[29]Section 196 of CWUMPO.

[30]Allied Ever Holdings Ltd v. Li Shu Chung and Others (27/11/2017, HCCW497/2009) at §§5-6.

[31]Allied Ever Holdings Ltd v. Li Shu Chung and Others (27/11/2017, HCCW497/2009) at §3.

[32]Re Legend International Resorts Ltd (in Compulsory Liquidation) (07/03/2011, HCCW1139/2004) at §30.

[33]A committee of inspection is appointed following the first meetings of creditors and contributories and consists of creditors and persons who need to contribute to the assets of the company. Its function is to help supervise the exercise of power by the liquidator.

[34]See:https://www./pdf/eng/publications/panel_a_scheme_rules_annexC.pdf