Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
具有高风险高收益特征的私募基金自诞生以来吸引了无数投资者，它帮助很多投资者在短期内取得了可观的收益，但高收益必然伴随着高风险。在私募基金未取得理想的收益或甚至发生亏损后，部分投资者以基金管理人在募集、投资、投后管理、清算等过程中未适当履职为由，通过向监管部门投诉、提起诉讼或仲裁等方式要求基金管理人承担赔偿责任的案例比比皆是，对基金管理人的财务状况及后续展业造成了严重的不利影响。
本文结合清算过程中基金管理人可能出现的未适当履职及由此需承担的赔偿责任进行分析，以期引起基金管理人对基金清算工作的高度重视，避免自身及从业人员的赔偿责任。
一、延迟、怠于履行清算义务的赔偿责任
1. 未适当履职的情形
前言
私募基金“募投管退”等各阶段时常经历来自市场、政策及监管等种种不确定风险，这期间不仅基金管理人付出了大量的人力、物力以保障基金的正常运行和基金财产的安全，投资者也在默默期待取得理想的投资收益，而清算退出正是私募基金管理人与投资者迎来最终投资结果的阶段，清算完毕也意味着私募基金生命的终结，其重要性对于各方来说不言而喻。
一、私募基金清算的意义
私募基金的清算完毕代表着基金管理人、托管人及投资者等多方主体间法律关系的正式终结，对基金管理人、托管人而言，基金清算后将大幅减少其在投后管理中所投入的精力，且所应对的监管也会相应减少；对投资者而言，在基金清算后可以取回现有投资财产，保障自身资金的流动性；针对基金行业来说通过清算淘汰了部分“劣质”私募基金，彰显了优胜劣汰法则，可以使行业整体的发展越来越健康。
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
In Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v PAG Asset Preservation Ltd [2019] EWHC 2890 the Secretary presented petitions under s 124A of the Insolvency Act 1986 to wind up two companies on public interest grounds. These companies were PAG Asset Preservation Limited and MB Vacant Property Solutions Limited (the Companies).
The Privy Council has rejected an attempt to block a cross-border liquidation on procedural grounds in UBS AG New York v Fairfield Sentry [2019] UKPC 20.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.