近几年，受技术红利、产品市场、资本市场政策等多方面因素的影响，一些具有中国元素的美国公司寻求在中国境内（“境内”）市场的融资，探寻落地境内进而实现境内IPO的路径，但是，基于中美法律、税务系统的差异，在论证重组路径的过程中经常会耗费大量时间和金钱成本，往往因创始人和股东的美籍身份在重组过程中面临巨大的美国税负而导致重组搁浅。本文结合我们的实操经验对美国公司重组落回境内涉及的相关要点问题进行分析。

一、架构拆除的必要性

根据我国《公司法》，上市公司是指股票在证券交易所上市交易的、在中国境内设立的股份有限公司。但是，对于境外主体在境内A股上市的突破体现在根据《关于开展创新企业境内发行股票或存托凭证试点若干意见的通知》规定红筹企业允许发行股票或存托凭证在境内上市，例如“H公司（证券代码：688***）”以红筹企业通过直接跨境发行股票的方式以及“J公司（证券代码：689***）”以红筹企业通过发行存托凭证（CDR）的方式在境内上市，但前述情形下对于拟上市公司“红筹企业”的行业、预计市值等方面要求较高，且“红筹企业”一般被认为是注册在境外，主要经营活动在境内的企业[1]。因此，对于主要业务运营在美国且融资平台注册在中国境外的主体目前仍难以在境内直接上市。

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?