引子

将于2024年7月1日正式施行的《公司法》（以下简称“新《公司法》”）第二百三十二条对于“清算义务人”及“未及时履行清算义务责任”（以下简称“董事怠于清算责任”）进行了重大修订，无论是股份公司还是有限公司，董事都将成为法定的唯一清算义务人。该条规定的更新无疑将引发司法解释及其他配套规定的新一轮重大修改，并将再次对司法实践中本就争议颇多的怠于清算责任案件的裁判规则带来冲击。

引子

将于2024年7月1日正式施行的《公司法》（以下简称“《新公司法》”）第二百三十二条对于“清算义务人”及“怠于履行清算义务责任”（以下简称“怠于清算责任”）进行了重大修订，无论是股份公司还是有限公司，董事都将成为法定的唯一清算义务人。该条规定的更新无疑将引发司法解释及其他配套规定的新一轮重大修改，并将对司法实践中本就争议颇多的怠于清算责任案件的裁判规则再次带来冲击。

回望我国立法沿革，在超过三十年的时间中，对于“清算义务人”及“怠于清算责任”的规定修订之繁多、体系之冲突、解释之模糊，遍观整个民商事法律体系都属罕见，并由此引发了大量“类案不同判”的现象。鉴此，笔者将结合《新公司法》的最新修改，对涉及“清算义务人”和“怠于清算责任”的规定进行系统回顾及梳理，并以此为基础对《新公司法》的新修亮点及溯及力问题进行初步分析，抛砖引玉，并求教于业界。

一、《新公司法》之前我国法律对于“清算义务人”与“怠于清算责任”的立法沿革

（一）2005年《公司法》修订之前的相关规定

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.