On 31 October 2023, Federal Law No. 51 of 2023 Promulgating the Financial and Bankruptcy Law (the Bankruptcy Law) was published in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Official Gazette, repealing the prior federal law on bankruptcy (Federal Law No. 9 of 2016, the Prior Law) and significantly developing the bankruptcy regime in the UAE.
引言
在香港、中国内地和台湾等司法管辖区运营的家族企业，通常会把企业的实益拥有权和控制权置于英属维尔京群岛（下称“BVI”）注册成立的公司股东名下。受惠于 BVI 公司隐私法的相关优势及其对高净值个人和家族的特殊吸引力，整个企业的实益拥有权甚至能位于国际业务结构顶端的 BVI 控股公司（下称“BVI 控股公司”）发行的股份。
从遗产规划的角度来看，为了确保企业由家族或高净值个人保留控制，企业的融资方式通常是通过股东或几个主要股东向企业提供贷款。如果企业多年来的融资方式一直是 BVI 控股公司获提供的贷款，那么该 BVI 公司欠下的债务总额很有可能相当庞大。一旦贷款人去世便会产生一系列问题，例如死者能否追讨 BVI 公司欠下的债务、追讨申请的正确诉讼地等。
本文将厘清上述部分问题，并分享康德明对于已故个人代表在 BVI 追讨债务的一些指引。
In October 2022, the Privy Council delivered its judgment in the Z Trust case of Equity Trust (Jersey) Ltd (Respondent) v Halabi (in his capacity as Executor of the Estate of the late Mdam Intisar Nouri) (Jersey)which was consolidated with ITG Ltd and others (Respondents) v Fort Trustees Ltd and another (Appellants) (Guernsey).The Privy Council considered the nature and scope of the right of a former trustee to recover from or be indemnified out of assets of an insolvent trust in respect of liabilities and other expenditures proper
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: