一、“集中管辖”概述
《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（下称“《民事诉讼法》”）中，对于“集中管辖”并无明确的规定，而在民事诉讼的司法实践中，存在许多被称为“集中管辖”的做法。实务中，“集中管辖”泛指将某类案件，依照《民事诉讼法》及其他法律法规的相关规定，以司法解释或者通知的形式，集中由某类法院或某个法院管辖的情形。
概括来说，“集中管辖”共分为如下三种情形：
（1）某类法院集中管辖某类案件，如依据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（下称“《企业破产法》”）第二十一条的规定，破产案件中涉债务人的诉讼案件集中由受理破产申请的人民法院管辖，或者依据《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》（以下简称“《债券会议纪要》”）第十条的规定，以发行人或者增信机构为被告提起的要求依约偿付债券本息或者履行增信义务的合同纠纷案件，由发行人住所地人民法院管辖；
（2）某个法院集中管辖某一类型化案件，如各地金融法院集中管辖当地金融案件、各地知识产权法院集中管辖当地知识产权案件；
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.