金杜合伙人苏萌律师应联合国国际贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）邀请作为碳交易及金融领域专家，于2024年1月31日和2月1日参加在维也纳举行的联合国贸易法委员会（UNCITRAL）专家组与国际统一私法协会（UNIDROIT）工作组关于自愿碳信用（VCC）法律性质的联席会议[1]。在联席会议上，苏律师就工作报告内容参与讨论并发表观点，并就中国自愿碳市场发展状况对研究报告做出修订和补充。

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?

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.

受OPEC与俄罗斯减产谈判进展及后续措施影响，3月9日开市以来原油价格强劲下行，连带其他相关大宗商品价格以同样惊人的幅度大幅下跌，朋友圈纷纷感叹“活久见”。2020年初的黑天鹅接踵而至，很难判断下一站的走势到底在哪，也难判断对国内期货等金融市场的传导究竟会到何种程度。在这个价格剧烈波动的日子，人们耳边又回响起华尔街故老相传的”Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered” 的残酷谚语。在目前中国境内证券期货市场中，和做空手段相对有限的股票市场相比，期货市场天然的多头-空头交易机制可以更直观的展现这句话的涵义。

1、当我们在谈论“强行平仓”和“三板强平”时，我在谈些什么？

期货交易的亏损并不仅指强行平仓带来的损失，但是面对如此惊人的市场变化，“爆仓”、“强行平仓”和“三板强平”这类期货术语或行话还是最让人屏住呼吸的字眼。与肾上腺素飙升，杀伐决断的Trader们以及或焦虑或欣慰的相关企业的关注点不同，作为律师的我们，视线停在了这些期货术语或行话背后的基础法律关系上。从机制本身出发：

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)?

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?