Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
对于陷入困境的企业，可以通过与债权人之间以协议的方式，对企业进行债务调整和资产重构，以实现企业复兴和债务清偿。而债务重组中债权人最关注的即是如何有效地实现债权退出，不同类型的债权人、不同的债权情况所涉的债权人诉求均可能存在差异，提供多样化的债权退出路径可以更有效地促进困境企业债务重组成功。根据实践经验，我们总结出多种卓有成效的债权退出路径，包括但不限于直接参与留债重组、债权转股权、债权转让、资产证券化等等。
一、直接参与留债重组
对于债务人陷入流动性危机，但本身资质良好，给予一定的时间可度过困境恢复清偿能力的，债权人往往愿意与债务人就还款金额、还款方式、还款时间等债权债务问题达成新的协议，通过优化该类企业的资产负债结构、盘活企业不良资产，帮助企业渡过财务危机，最终实现债权受偿。
在留债重组的方式下，债权人亦可以有多种具体的债权退出路径，包括但不限于资产出售及资产盘活偿债、以资产或信托受益权等财产权抵债、以企业经营收益现金受偿、企业恢复良性负债率后融资还债等等。特殊情况下，如相关债权涉及企业继续经营所必需，还可以采取“类共益债”的形式，由全体债权人表决引入投资人协助原债权人退出。
（一）以部分资产出售偿债退出
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.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: