我国现行的《环境保护法》、《民法典》侵权责任编、《企业破产法》以及最高人民法院相关司法解释对于追究企业的环境侵权民事责任作出了相应的规定，但对于企业破产阶段的环境侵权之债的清偿顺序问题，并未作出明确规定，如果仅将其作为普通债权进行处理，往往导致企业的环境债务无法得到清偿。在此前提下，破产程序中的环境债务问题已引起司法部门高度重视。2022年11月4日，贵阳市中级人民法院出台的《贵阳市中级人民法院关于审理企业破产案件中涉生态环境问题处理的工作指引》，体现出法院不断强化环境保护司法力度的趋势；2023年2月，最高人民法院发布的推进碳达峰碳中和典型案例四“杭州某球拍公司破产清算案”[1]，将案涉危废物处置费用作为破产费用列支，充分反映出司法对生态环境保护愈加强化。
破产企业环境债务与职工债务、税务债务一样，均具有社会性、公益性的特殊性质，同时环境债务所承载的环境治理长远性意义尤甚。因此，破产企业环境债务的清偿问题亟待厘清。
一、企业破产程序中的环境债务
（一）环境债务的形成
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.
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:
The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.
The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.
The Insolvency and Company Court of England and Wales recently held in Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Anil Sareen [2019] EWHC 2332 (Ch) that, when a debtor fails to comply with a statutory demand and has no arguable case to dispute a debt, a winding-up petition (initiation of liquidation proceedings) is appropriate, despite judges previously expressing distaste towards the use of a petition as a method of debt collection.
The High Court in Cullen Group Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2019] NZHC 3110 has rejected Cullen Group's attempt to delay payment of half a million dollars in court costs to the Commissioner of Inland Revenue, with Palmer J dismissing the argument that Cullen Group would go into liquidation as a result.
Eric Watson's private investment company, Cullen Group Limited, lost a case in front of Palmer J in March which held that Cullen Group avoided $51.5m of tax. Cullen Group owed Inland Revenue $505,399.55 in court costs.