Fulltext Search

Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you’ll know that commodity prices are in the doldrums and that the outlook in the near term is not particularly positive. How should Boards prepare? Combine that with current inflation, interest rate and other cost of living pressures that continue to dominate public discourse and you can understand why many Boards and executives in the resources sector are having some sleepless nights. FY24 is also on track to have more insolvencies than FY23. By December FY24 insolvency activity was up 33.79% on the same time in FY23.

The High Court of Australia’s decision in Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (as Owner Trustee) & Anor v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) & Ors (the “Willis” case).

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in the Willis case.

On the 2 August 2021 Treasury released a consultation paper titled ‘Helping Companies Restructure by Improving Schemes of Arrangement. The consultation is aimed at reforming Australia’s scheme of arrangement procedure.

A recent decision of the Federal Court has confirmed that a secured creditor who consents to employee creditors being paid out of the charged asset pool is entitled to be subrogated to the priority rights of those employee creditors.

1.1 Facts

Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) was the only secured creditor of Akron Roads Pty Ltd (Akron), holding fixed and floating charges over all of Akron’s undertakings and assets. In 2010, liquidators were appointed to Akron.

Following our previous alert here on Justice Middleton’s decision in Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (trustee) v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed),[1] the administra

Insolvency relief extended to 31 December 2020

On Sunday, the Federal Government announced that it will extend until the end of the year insolvency relief measures which were put in place from March 2020 as part of its response to the COVID-19 pandemic which were due to expire on 25 September 2020.[1]

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 part of its economic response to the COVID-19 pandemic, yesterday the Government passed a ‘temporary safe harbour’ insolvency measure[1].