Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
引言
近期，香港高等法院正式颁布针对一家大型港股公司（“港股公司”）的清盘令并委任清盘人。这宗债项涉及约数十亿美元的清盘呈请终于落下帷幕，也成为香港有史以来涉及金额最大的清盘案件之一。不少客户均希望了解，香港法下这类清盘对债权人利益及权利之影响。我们将持续推出系列文章，为大家介绍有关内容。
案情简介
根据香港公司清盘法律规定，公司任何一位债权人、股东或公司本身均可通过向高等法院提交清盘呈请书发起针对该公司的强制清盘。就该案而言，数月前港股公司的一债权人入禀香港高等法院，对港股公司提起清盘呈请（“呈请”）。该清盘呈请提出后，历经多次聆讯及延期申请，香港高等法院最终针对港股公司颁布了清盘令。
债权人对清盘债务人的行动
一旦公司进入强制清盘程序，根据香港公司清盘法律规定，所有针对该公司的诉讼程序均会自动中止。该规定目的在于确保清盘程序的有序进行，公司资产不会被用于提起或辩护任何法律程序，以保护公司财产和债权人利益。
引言
近期，香港高等法院正式颁布针对一家大型港股公司（“港股公司”）的清盘令并委任清盘人。这宗债项涉及约数十亿美元的清盘呈请终于落下帷幕，也成为香港有史以来涉及金额最大的清盘案件之一。不少客户均希望了解，香港法下这类清盘对债权人利益及权利之影响。我们将持续推出系列文章，为大家介绍有关内容。
案情简介
根据香港公司清盘法律规定，公司任何一位债权人、股东或公司本身均可通过向高等法院提交清盘呈请书发起针对该公司的强制清盘。就该案而言，数月前港股公司的一债权人入禀香港高等法院，对港股公司提起清盘呈请（“呈请”）。该清盘呈请提出后，历经多次聆讯及延期申请，香港高等法院最终针对港股公司颁布了清盘令。
债权人对清盘债务人的行动
一旦公司进入强制清盘程序，根据香港公司清盘法律规定，所有针对该公司的诉讼程序均会自动中止。该规定目的在于确保清盘程序的有序进行，公司资产不会被用于提起或辩护任何法律程序，以保护公司财产和债权人利益。
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.
The statutory demand process
If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.
A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.
A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.
A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.
The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.
Introduction
In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:
It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.
A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.
Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity
A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.
Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.
Section 139ZQ notices
Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.
Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.