One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.
How does it happen?
本文主要讨论公司型基金、合伙型基金自行清算的主要流程,并就基金自行清算出现僵局等情形时,如何申请法院启动基金强制清算程序的主要问题作初步探讨。
基金清算适用的法律
对于公司型基金的清算,其主要适用《公司法》以及《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定(二)》(下称“《公司法司法解释二》”)《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》(下称“《强制清算纪要》”)以及部分高院出台的相关审判指导。
对于合伙型基金的清算,除适用《合伙企业法》外,可参照公司法律的有关规定。对此,《民法总则》第一百零八条规定,“非法人组织除适用本章规定外,参照适用本编第三章第一节的有关规定”;第三编第一节对法人清算作出了相关规定,其中第七十一条规定,“法人的清算程序和清算组职权,依照有关法律的规定;没有规定的,参照适用公司法律的有关规定”。例如,北京一中院在(2020)京01清申27号《民事裁定书》中基于上述规定,认定合伙型基金的清算应当参照《公司法》的相关规定进行。
除前述规定外,中国证监会、中基协的相关规定,以及其他行业自治组织的相关规定,亦可作为基金清算的依据。
As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.
When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.
What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?
优先清算权条款是境外风险投资项目的常见条款,随后逐渐在国内私募股权投资文件中采用。很多投资人关心,这一舶来品能否获得中国司法机关的认可,我们简要分析如下:
一、什么是优先清算权
优先清算权,是指公司清算时,部分股东优先于其他股东获得剩余财产分配的权利;或者,在约定的“视同清算事件”发生时,部分股东优先于其他股东从公司获得收益的权利,“视同清算事件”通常包括公司合并、被并购、出售控股股权、出售主要资产等事件。
在私募股权投资项目中,投资人为保障其自身权益采用优先清算权条款,目的是:在公司经营不善遭遇清算时,投资人可以优先拿回一些补偿;在投资人无法通过公司上市退出,发生公司被并购等“视同清算事件”发生时,其能够优先收回其投资成本和一定程度的投资回报,实现资产变现。该条款可谓投资人的“分钱利器”。
二、如何看待该条款效力
《公司法》第34条明确规定股东可以自由约定“利润分配”的比例。该条规定:“股东按照实缴的出资比例分取红利;公司新增资本时,股东有权优先按照实缴的出资比例认缴出资。但是,全体股东约定不按照出资比例分取红利或者不按照出资比例优先认缴出资的除外。”
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia declined to annul a bankruptcy in circumstances where the bankrupt claimed the proceedings should have been adjourned given his incarceration and solvency at the time the order was made: Mehajer v Weston in his Capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713. The judgment is useful in reiterating what factors the Court will consider when deciding whether to order an annulment under section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act).
Generally, once a company enters into liquidation, litigation against that company cannot be commenced or be continued without the leave of the Court (Corporations Act 2001, s 471B). However, occasionally a liquidator may cause a company to commence or defend litigation after the commencement of the winding up. What happens if the company in liquidation is unsuccessful in that litigation and is subject to an adverse cost order? How will such an adverse cost order rank amongst other competing creditors?
Getting to the top
The Federal Court of Australia recently struck off an insolvency practitioner from the register of liquidators and restrained him for ten years for acting as an insolvency practitioner. The case concerns the conduct of David Iannuzi, who the Court found had "repeatedly fell short of the standards that would ordinarily be expected of him as a competent registered liquidator". The judgment sets out in detail the conduct that the Court found to be unsatisfactory and serves as a reminder of the standards expected of liquidators.
Background
It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?