前记

执行是实现生效裁判文书债权的“最后关键一环”，是维护当事人合法权益的“最后一公里”。囿于执行领域纷繁复杂的法律规定以及各地司法实践的尺度不一，执行往往成为争议解决的重点及难点。我们长期专注于执行领域，代理了大量金融资管公司、上市公司的公证债权文书、诉讼/仲裁的执行案件。为此，基于执行实务经验，我们着眼于当前执行领域的热点难点问题，推出执行干货系列专题文章，敬请关注。

专题二

目前，法院通过网络拍卖平台处置财产已成为处置执行财产的主要方式，相比传统拍卖模式而言网络拍卖的效率可能更高，也更有利于保护债权的实现以及债务人的合法权益。近年来，越来越多的破产财产也同样通过网络拍卖平台高效处置。实践中，竞买人经常因为种种原因事后意图“悔拍”并寻求救济。对此，破产网络拍卖相关纠纷究竟属于何种性质？竞买人应选择什么程序进行救济？拍卖公告是否一律不得修改？本文结合司法实践对前述疑问进行单刀直入地解析。

破产网络拍卖的性质

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.