引言
在香港、中国内地和台湾等司法管辖区运营的家族企业，通常会把企业的实益拥有权和控制权置于英属维尔京群岛（下称“BVI”）注册成立的公司股东名下。受惠于 BVI 公司隐私法的相关优势及其对高净值个人和家族的特殊吸引力，整个企业的实益拥有权甚至能位于国际业务结构顶端的 BVI 控股公司（下称“BVI 控股公司”）发行的股份。
从遗产规划的角度来看，为了确保企业由家族或高净值个人保留控制，企业的融资方式通常是通过股东或几个主要股东向企业提供贷款。如果企业多年来的融资方式一直是 BVI 控股公司获提供的贷款，那么该 BVI 公司欠下的债务总额很有可能相当庞大。一旦贷款人去世便会产生一系列问题，例如死者能否追讨 BVI 公司欠下的债务、追讨申请的正确诉讼地等。
本文将厘清上述部分问题，并分享康德明对于已故个人代表在 BVI 追讨债务的一些指引。
In October 2022, the Privy Council delivered its judgment in the Z Trust case of Equity Trust (Jersey) Ltd (Respondent) v Halabi (in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of the late Mdam Intisar Nouri) (Jersey)which was consolidated with ITG Ltd and others (Respondents) v Fort Trustees Ltd and another (Appellants) (Guernsey).The Privy Council considered the nature and scope of the right of a former trustee to recover from or be indemnified out of assets of an insolvent trust in respect of liabilities and other expenditures proper
过去数年，打包重组（Repackaging）结构盛行，中资金融机构寻求使用其作为便利进入市场的工具，并为客户提供创新的融资方案。
中国房地产行业是最广泛使用该结构的行业之一，该行业在2021年高开低走、大起大跌，并于最后一季急挫。市场预期房地产行业在2022年仍将困难重重。
在此背景下，我们察觉到安排人（Arranger）、中国房地产企业及投资者正在寻求对现有的打包重组交易进行结构调整（restructure）的机会（包括提前终止、展期、增加额外增信措施、置换等安排）。此外，我们还观察到，市场对与中国非房地产行业主体（如融资租赁公司、金融科技公司）相关的资产支持交易的兴趣有所增加。
我们将于本文探讨部分有关修订或提前终止打包重组交易的主要问题，并且概述我们在市场中观察到的典型案例和未来趋势。
温故知新：打包重组交易的基本结构
许多较为简单的打包重组交易的结构一般具有下列特点：
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?