前言

《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）在公平清理债权债务、维护社会经济秩序等方面起到了重要的作用。但《破产法》下限制表决权的条款也因缺乏统一具体的适用标准——尤其是庭外程序表决效力的延伸、职工债权人和出资人表决权规范缺失等——而导致问题层出不穷，本文拟探其详并予建议。

一、破产表决权限制条款的适用问题

（一）禁反言规则在破产程序中的适用

《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称“《九民纪要》”）第一百一十五条认可了庭外重组协议在破产重整中的效力，但是在司法实践中仍然存在诸多问题。

第一，《九民纪要》第一百一十五条明确的是庭外重组与庭内重整程序的衔接。从文义解释角度，该条仅能适用于最终转化为破产重整的庭外重组程序。而庭内企业拯救程序不仅包括破产重整程序，同时也包括破产和解程序。庭外债务重组协议的效力能否延伸到破产和解程序中仍有待进一步明确。

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?

How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?

In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.

What happened?