Who Are “Present and Voting” and Two Different Effective Dates: Lessons from China Changbaishan Scheme
Company and Insolvency
On 21 July 2026, Linda Chan J, the Companies Judge, sanctioned the scheme of arrangement proposed by China Changbaishan International Holdings Ltd (the “Company”), a Bermudian company listed on the Main Board of the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong (Stock Code: 989), compromising HK$711.37 million of debt owed to 27 Scheme Creditors. In the Reasons for Judgment handed down on 16 September 2026 (Re China Changbaishan International Holdings Ltd [2026] HKCFI 5285), Her Ladyship addressed two points of importance to restructuring practitioners: (1) how an abstention is treated when counting the statutory majority under s.674 of the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622)(the “Ordinance”), and (2) why a distinction has to be drawn between the “Scheme Effective Date” and the “Restructuring Effective Date”.
Present, but not voting: abstentions do not count against a scheme
s.674(1)(a) of the Ordinance requires “a majority in number representing at least 75% in value of the creditors present and voting” to agree to a scheme. At the Scheme Meeting, one Scheme Creditor holding 18.88% of the Claims admitted for voting attended but abstained. The Company submitted that the abstaining creditor should be treated as neither present nor voting for the purpose of the statutory calculation, meaning the Scheme was approved by 100% in number and 100% in value of those who did vote.
The Court agreed with the Company’s submission, tracing the statutory language back through its legislative history. The predecessor provision, s.120 of the Companies (Consolidation) Act 1908, referred only to creditors “present either in person or by proxy at the meeting”, a formulation under which an abstention operated, in substance, as a vote against the scheme. The words “and voting” were inserted after “present” by s.53(3) of the Companies Act 1928, a change described by Nourse J in In re Savoy Hotel Ltd [1981] Ch 351 as marking the point from which an abstention ceased to count as an effective vote against a proposed arrangement. That formulation passed through the Companies Act 1929, the former Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32), and now s.674 of the Ordinance, all retaining the expression “present and voting”.
Reading the words “present and voting” as conjunctive, the Court clarified the law by observing that a creditor who attends but abstains is present but not voting, and is accordingly excluded from the denominator of the statutory majority calculation. Any other reading would render “and voting” otiose. It is important to note, however, that the abstention should still be disclosed to the Court, in keeping with the Company’s duty to present a full and accurate picture of what transpired at the Scheme Meeting.
Scheme Effective Date is not the same as Restructuring Effective Date
The Scheme originally provided that it would “become binding and effective” on the Company and the Scheme Creditors only once every condition precedent is satisfied, including (among other things) the Subscription Agreement becoming unconditional, the grant of the requisite Specific Mandate, and the Stock Exchange’s approval for listing of the Scheme Shares, etc (§39). The Court has expressly warned (at §40) that “stipulations to the effect that the Scheme will only become binding and effective after compliance with various commercial conditions is inconsistent with s.673(5)-(6) of the Ordinance”.
It is thus important for restructuring practitioners to note that, under s.673(5)-(6) of the Ordinance, a scheme sanctioned by the Court binds the relevant creditors once the sanction order is registered with the Companies Registry, irrespective of whether commercial conditions unrelated to the Court’s sanction have yet been satisfied. It follows that a well-drafted scheme (where appropriate) should distinguish between the “Scheme Effective Date” and the “Restructuring Effective Date”.
• The Scheme Effective Date is the date of registration of the sanction order, at which point the scheme binds the creditors and enforcement action against the company is precluded.
• The Restructuring Effective Date is the later date on which (1) all conditions to implementation of the wider restructuring are fulfilled (or waived), which must occur before the “Long Stop Date”, and (2) the company becomes obliged to deliver the scheme consideration.
Relatedly, restructuring practitioners must also take heed of the Court’s consistent approach in requiring the Long Stop Date “not be on a late date”. As the Court explained (at §44), “it would not be fair to bind the creditors for a prolonged period during which they would not receive any scheme consideration the Restructuring Effective Date”.
The Company was permitted to amend the Scheme at the 2nd sanction hearing to introduce a defined Restructuring Effective Date, without convening a further Scheme Meeting. Applying the principles summarised in Re Powerlong Real Estate Holdings Ltd [2025] 3 HKC 662, the Court held that a post-approval modification may be permitted where it has “no or minimal substantive effect on the rights or obligations of the parties under the scheme, such that it cannot be said to be an attempt by one or more parties to re-write the contractual bargain”. Here, the amendment did not alter when the Scheme Claims would be released and discharged, and in fact shortened the “limbo period” by pulling forward the Long Stop Date from 31 December 2026 to 31 October 2026, a change that only “benefits the Scheme Creditors”.
Key takeaways
For companies proposing a scheme with conditions beyond the Court’s sanction of the scheme (e.g. regulatory clearances, restructuring framework agreements, or shareholder approvals), the scheme document should separate the conditions precedent to the scheme becoming binding from the conditions precedent to completion of the wider restructuring. That is to say, the “Scheme Effective Date” can only refer to “the date upon registration of the court order sanctioning the scheme” (§43(1)). For creditors and their advisers, an intention to abstain rather than vote against a scheme is not a neutral act: on the Court’s reading of s.674, an abstention is stripped out of the calculation altogether, so it neither helps nor hinders the statutory majority, and a dissenting creditor wishing to be counted against a scheme should vote against it rather than abstain.
Matthew Suen (together with Michael Lok and Jasmine Cheung), instructed by CLKW Lawyers LLP, appeared for the Company in Re China Changbaishan International Holdings Ltd [2026] HKCFI 5285, in which the Court sanctioned the Company’s scheme of arrangement with its Scheme Creditors.
Authored by Matthew Suen.
Matthew Suen
“Matthew has excellent technical skills, including legal research, legal analysis, very high-quality drafting, and excellent written and oral advocacy. He is also very well-organised, he displays very strong commercial awareness and understanding, and he has a great ability to solve legal problems for commercial clients with a creative and sensitive application of substantive law and procedural rules, applied effectively to the commercial circumstances of the case.”
Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2026, Commercial Disputes, Rising Star
Matthew is a Charles Ching Scholar. Matthew is developing a broad civil practice across the full range of commercial litigation, international arbitration and advisory work. He is comfortable being instructed as part of a counsel team or in his own right, and has appeared unled in the High Court.
Before coming to the Bar, Matthew had a stint at one of China’s top Red Circle Firms where he acquired a good understanding of the mainland Chinese market in the context of cross-border commercial disputes. As barrister, Matthew is regularly instructed to act – as junior or sole counsel – in high-stakes commercial arbitrations administered by major arbitral institutions in Asia, including HKIAC, SIAC and CIETAC (HK). He also acts as secretary to arbitral tribunals.
Matthew read law in Hong Kong and mainland China and holds a Master of Laws degree in PRC Civil and Commercial Law from Peking University. He served pupillage with Mr Hectar Pun SC, Mr Adrian Lai JP, Dr Benny Lo, Mr Randy Shek and Mr Richard Yip before commencing his full practice in 2022. He currently serves in the Standing Committee on Mainland Affairs and the Committee on Arbitration of HKBA.
Please see Matthew’s profile for more details.
This article was first published on 17 September 2026.
Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.