Are you a person aggrieved?
您的权利受到了侵害吗？在破产案件中对清算人和受托人的决定提出异议时需掌握的关键特征
Critical features to be aware of in contesting decisions of liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy.
英国最高法院近日在 Brake & Anor 与 The Chedington Court Estate Ltd 一案中作出判决，就企业或个人在资不抵债的情况下，由谁对破产案件中清算人和受托人的决定提出异议的问题，给出了一个明确的界定。
A recent judgment of the United Kingdom Supreme Court in Brake & Anor v The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29 (10 August 2023) is likely to be a welcome decision for liquidators and trustees in bankruptcy in setting clear boundaries as to who has standing to challenge their decision-making in corporate or personal insolvency contexts. The judgment is expected to be persuasive in offshore jurisdictions such as Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, and the Cayman Islands given the following statutory provisions from the UK are substantially similar to their island counterparts:
- In the case of a corporate insolvency: "If any person is aggrieved by an act or decision of the liquidator, that person may apply to the court; and the court may confirm, reverse or modify the act or decision complained of, and make such order in the case as it thinks just." [1]
- In the case of a personal bankruptcy: “If a bankrupt or any of his creditors or any other person is dissatisfied by any act, omission or decision of a trustee of the bankrupt’s estate, he may apply to the court; and on such an application the court may confirm, reverse or modify any act or decision of the trustee, may give him directions or may make such other order as it thinks fit.”[2]
The Supreme Court held that whilst the language is very broad, the express terms are not, however, to be given a literal reading. Instead, as a matter of principle and having regard to authority, the Supreme Court defined the following classes of persons who have standing pursuant to the above statutory provisions:
- Creditors have standing where their application concerns their interests as creditors, because the bankrupt’s estate or the assets of the company in liquidation are administered under the terms of the statutory trust for their benefit as creditors.
- Likewise, where there is or there is likely to be a surplus, the bankrupt or shareholders in a company are also persons for whose benefit the estate or assets are being administered and they have standing in respect of their interests in the surplus.
- Beyond that, there is a limited class of cases[3] where creditors, the bankrupt, shareholders, or others will have standing, but only in respect of matters directly affecting their rights or interests and arising from powers conferred on trustees or liquidators which are peculiar to the statutory bankruptcy or liquidation regime.
The UK Court's decision on standing is consistent with the BVI Court of Appeal in Stanford v the Joint Liquidators of Chesterfield United Inc (BVIHCMAP2017/0019), a case in which Carey Olsen successfully acted for liquidators who resisted a challenge to their decision to enter into a global settlement agreement which provided for the admission and payment of its substantial claim in a liquidation. Whilst the issue of standing was fatal to the appellant (as a shareholder of a shareholder), the BVI Court of Appeal also rejected the challenge on its merits setting a high bar for overturning a liquidator's decision. In doing so it held that bad faith and fraud apart, a court will only interfere with the act of a liquidator if they have done something so perverse and manifestly absurd that no reasonable person would have done it. It also was not open to the Court to substitute its opinion for that of the liquidator or to question whether a liquidator has chosen the best approach.
Carey Olsen has extensive experience acting in corporate and personal insolvencies in Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, and the Cayman Islands, including for liquidators, trustees in bankruptcy, creditors and shareholders.
[1] Section 168(5) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) which is similar to s.176(5) of the Companies Act 1981 (Bermuda), and s.273 of the Insolvency Act 2003 (BVI). Section 110 of the Companies Act (2023 Revision) (Cayman Islands) in contrast expressly defines which persons have standing on a sanction application depending on whether the company is solvent, insolvent or where solvency is doubted.
[2] Section 303(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (UK) which is similar to s. 81 of the Bankruptcy Act 1989 (Bermuda), s.332(1) of the Insolvency Act 2003 (BVI), and s. 98 of the Bankruptcy Law (1997 Revision) (Cayman Islands).
[3] These cases have been rare. They have included a bankrupt's application to challenge the trustee’s costs and expenses which was directly relevant to an annulment of his bankruptcy; and a landlord's application in respect of a liquidator's disclaimer of a lease as onerous property, which is a procedure uniquely available in a liquidation.
近来，英国最高法院在 Brake & Anor 与 The Chedington Court Estate Ltd [2023] UKSC 29（2023 年 8 月 10 日）一案中作出判决，就企业或个人在资不抵债的情况下，由谁对破产案件中清算人和受托人的决定提出异议的问题，给出了一个明确的界定，该判决对清算人和受托人来说是利好消息。由于以下英国法定条文与百慕大、英属维尔京群岛和开曼群岛等离岸司法管辖区的法律实质上类似，该判决将在该等离岸司法管辖区具有说服力。
- 对于资不抵债的公司而言：“若任何人认为其权利因清算人的作为或决定而受损，该等人士可向法庭提出申请，而法庭可确认、推翻或修改被申诉的作为决定，并就此作出其认为公正的判令。”1
- 对于个人破产而言：“若破产人或任何债权人或任何其他人因受托人对破产人的财产的任何作为、不作为或决定而不满，其可向法庭提出申请，而法庭可就该申请确认、推翻或修改受托人的作为或决定，可给予指导或就此作出其认为合适的判令。”2
最高法院认为虽然措辞非常广泛，但明示条款不能按字面解读。相反，作为一个原则事项并考虑到权限问题，最高法院根据上述法律规定，对以下几类享有起诉权的人员进行了界定：
1. 当债权人的申请涉及其作为债权人的利益时，债权人享有起诉权，因为破产人的财产或处于清算状态的公司资产根据法定信托条款进行管理，而债权人作为受益人。
2. 同样，若破产人的财产或公司资产存在或可能存在盈余，破产人或公司的股东也是所管理财产或资产的受益人，对于其在剩余财产中的利益，该等人士也享有起诉权。
3. 除此之外，在少数情况下债权人、破产人、股东等享有起诉权3，但仅限于直接影响其权利或利益的事项，以及依据某法定破产或清算机制授予受托人或清算人权力而导致的事项。
英国法院关于起诉权的判决与英属维尔京群岛上诉法庭在 Stanford 与联合清算人 Chesterfield United Inc (BVIHCMAP2017/0019) 案件中的起诉权判决一致。在该案中，凯瑞奥信 (Carey Olsen) 成功代表清算人抵制了对其签订全球和解协议的决定的质疑，该协议规定在清算中承认并支付其巨额索赔。虽然起诉权问题对上诉人（作为股东的股东）非常不利，但英属维尔京群岛上诉法院也驳回了对其实质问题的质疑，为推翻清算人的决定设定了很高的门槛。上诉法院认为，除了恶意和欺诈之外，法院仅在清算人的行为反常和明显荒谬，以至于任何合理判断的人都不会做出这样的决定时法院才会干涉清算人的行为。法院也不能取代清算人的意见，亦不能质疑清算人是否做出最佳选择。
凯瑞奥信在百慕大、英属维尔京群岛和开曼群岛的公司和个人破产方面拥有丰富的诉讼经验，可为清算人、破产受托人、债权人和股东就诉讼等事宜提供法律服务。
[1] 英国《1986 年破产法》第 168(5) 节与百慕大《1981 年公司法》第 176(5) 节和英属维尔京群岛《2003 年破产法》第 273 节相似。与此相反，开曼群岛《公司法》第 110 节（2023 年修订）明确规定，谁有权对批准申请提出起诉，取决于该公司是有偿债能力，还是资不抵债，亦或是偿付能力受到质疑。
[2] 英国《1986 年破产法》第 303(1) 节与百慕大《1989 年破产法》第 81 节、英属维尔京群岛《2003 年破产法》第 332(1) 节和开曼群岛《破产法》（1997 年修订）第 98 节类似。
[3] 该等情况较为少见。这些情况包括破产人对与废止其破产令直接相关的受托人之成本和费用提出质疑申请，以及业主就清算人放弃租约作为负有义务财产提出申请，这是清算诉讼中唯一可进行的流程。
