本文主要讨论公司型基金、合伙型基金自行清算的主要流程，并就基金自行清算出现僵局等情形时，如何申请法院启动基金强制清算程序的主要问题作初步探讨。
基金清算适用的法律
对于公司型基金的清算，其主要适用《公司法》以及《最高人民法院关于适用＜中华人民共和国公司法＞若干问题的规定（二）》（下称“《公司法司法解释二》”）《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》（下称“《强制清算纪要》”）以及部分高院出台的相关审判指导。
对于合伙型基金的清算，除适用《合伙企业法》外，可参照公司法律的有关规定。对此，《民法总则》第一百零八条规定，“非法人组织除适用本章规定外，参照适用本编第三章第一节的有关规定”；第三编第一节对法人清算作出了相关规定，其中第七十一条规定，“法人的清算程序和清算组职权，依照有关法律的规定；没有规定的，参照适用公司法律的有关规定”。例如，北京一中院在（2020）京01清申27号《民事裁定书》中基于上述规定，认定合伙型基金的清算应当参照《公司法》的相关规定进行。
除前述规定外，中国证监会、中基协的相关规定，以及其他行业自治组织的相关规定，亦可作为基金清算的依据。
优先清算权条款是境外风险投资项目的常见条款，随后逐渐在国内私募股权投资文件中采用。很多投资人关心，这一舶来品能否获得中国司法机关的认可，我们简要分析如下：
一、什么是优先清算权
优先清算权，是指公司清算时，部分股东优先于其他股东获得剩余财产分配的权利；或者，在约定的“视同清算事件”发生时，部分股东优先于其他股东从公司获得收益的权利，“视同清算事件”通常包括公司合并、被并购、出售控股股权、出售主要资产等事件。
在私募股权投资项目中，投资人为保障其自身权益采用优先清算权条款，目的是：在公司经营不善遭遇清算时，投资人可以优先拿回一些补偿；在投资人无法通过公司上市退出，发生公司被并购等“视同清算事件”发生时，其能够优先收回其投资成本和一定程度的投资回报，实现资产变现。该条款可谓投资人的“分钱利器”。
二、如何看待该条款效力
《公司法》第34条明确规定股东可以自由约定“利润分配”的比例。该条规定：“股东按照实缴的出资比例分取红利；公司新增资本时，股东有权优先按照实缴的出资比例认缴出资。但是，全体股东约定不按照出资比例分取红利或者不按照出资比例优先认缴出资的除外。”
公司资本充足是指股东实缴的出资与公司的经营规模相适应，以确保公司有充足的资本应对经营风险、偿付到期债务，与之相匹配的法律规范就是公司资本充足制度。近年来，随着市场经济的发展，立法机关改变了法定资本制的立场，在司法实践中，公司资本充足制度也呈现出渐见宽松的趋势。
一、《公司法》多次修改公司资本制度，大幅放宽了资本管制
1993年12月颁行的《公司法》采取了严格的法定资本制度。
2005年10月修订的《公司法》在保持法定资本制度的同时，降低了设立公司的资本门槛，将严格的法定资本制度修改为法定资本分期缴纳的资本制度。
2013年12月修正的《公司法》大幅修改了公司资本制度，将实缴登记制改为认缴登记制（特殊行业除外），取消了注册资本的最低限额、分期认缴期限、首付出资比例及出资财产形式的限制等规定，改由股东在公司章程中自行约定，基本完成从法定资本制到授权资本制的转变。
2018年10月修改的《公司法》增加了允许上市公司回购本公司股份的情形，并实际上赋予上市公司回购股份的自主决定权（“上市公司为维护公司价值及股东权益所必需”），还简化了股份回购的决策程序，提高了公司持有本公司股份的数额上限，延长了公司持有所回购股份的期限。
This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.
What happened?
This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?