Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
近年来，由于经济形势下行叠加新冠疫情，众多企业陷入经营困难和债务危机，庭外债务重组因具有较高的灵活性、自主性，不受时间和程序上的限制，成为化解企业债务危机的重要方式，而敏感债权因其涉众性成为庭外债务重组程序中的棘手问题。敏感债权往往与非法集资有着千丝万缕的联系，本文将从庭外重组中涉非（涉嫌非法集资）敏感债权处置角度出发，具体分析敏感债权处置方案中的重点法律问题，以及律师在涉非敏感债权处置中的作用。
一、敏感债权的概念与特征
（一）敏感债权的概念
正如庭外重组一样，对于敏感债权，法律尚未给出明确的定义。结合过往庭外重组等债务风险处置案例，可以将敏感债权理解为：因涉及众多自然人债权人，可能涉嫌非法集资，而需要在债务处置中特别考虑的债权，主要包括涉及个人的理财产品和民间集资。
（二）敏感债权的特征
敏感债权的主要特点如下：
1. 债权人一般为自然人，且人数众多，具有涉众性特点。敏感债权一般涉及众多自然人债权人，这类群体抗风险能力一般较差，企业债务危机爆发后，如果无法及时清偿敏感债权，可能诱发群体性事件，影响社会稳定。
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: