On 10 October 2019 the Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, announced an upcoming inquiry into insolvency practices. The inquiry was announced in light of rising concerns as to the efficacy of the voluntary administration process for SMEs and family-owned businesses, and concerns with the conduct of insolvency practitioners more generally.
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。”
The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment has published a Cabinet Paper outlining proposed reforms to New Zealand's insolvency laws to take account of certain recommendations made in the second report of the Insolvency Working Group from May 2017.
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。
On various occasions during the periods 2012 to 2018, Shane Warner Builders Limited (SWBL) regularly failed to pay GST and PAYE to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue.
In January 2018 the Commissioner filed an application to put SWBL into liquidation. The proceeding was adjourned in March 2018 whilst the Commissioner and Applicant engaged in negotiations for relief which ultimately failed due to SWBL's history of failures to pay tax arrears and failing to provide substantive supporting evidence regarding the source of funds required to settle current tax arrears.
North Harbour Motors Limited (in liquidation) (North Harbour) issued a statutory demand against Moffat Road Limited (Moffat) in respect of two separate $30,000 deposits paid by North Harbour to Moffat on the purchase of two properties pursuant to agreements for sale and purchase dated 6 July 2015 (the Agreements).
FTG Securities Limited involved an application by FTG Securities Limited (FTG) for declarations as to the interpretation of a Deed of Priority. The Deed of Priority was entered into by Canterbury Finance Limited (CFL) and a bank with respect to the security interests in Tuam Ventures Limited (in Rec and in Liq) (TVL). Declaratory relief was sought against the bank and the receivers of TVL. An issue raised by way of an affirmative defence was whether the assignment of TVL's debt and securities to FTG is valid from a technical legal perspective and therefore wh
In what is likely to be the final chapter in the Ross Asset Management (RAM) liquidation, assuming no appeal is filed, the High Court has considered an application for directions by the liquidators of Ross Asset Management concerning how best to distribute recovered funds. David Ross operated RAM as a Ponzi scheme for decades until the fraud was uncovered in 2012 and the company went into liquidation. Mr Ross is currently serving a ten year plus term of imprisonment for his role as architect of the scheme.
In Lafferty v Official Assignee Gordon J considered Mr Lafferty's appeal of two decisions of the Official Assignee to refuse Mr Lafferty's applications under section 62(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act 1967 to enter or carry on business while bankrupt.
Gordon J dismissed the appeal on the basis that Mr Lafferty could not show that the Official Assignee had made an error of law, failed to take into account relevant considerations or was manifestly wrong in exercising its discretion under regulation 34 of the Insolvency Regulations 1970.
An application by New Zealand Life Care Limited (Life Care) for an order reversing the decision of the Official Assignee to reject its claim for $4.9m in the bankruptcy of Mr Harman was dismissed by the High Court in New Zealand Life Care Ltd v Official Assignee [2018] NZHC 17. Life Care said that Mr Harman had guaranteed loans from Life Care to his companies, but accepted that it did not have a written guarantee signed by Mr Harman. Instead it relied on Mr Harman's admission of the guarantee in affidavits made after his adjudication.