一、股东的责任

一般来说，股东只就其认购股份的出资承担责任，而如果公司无偿债能力进而清盘，股东层面并不负有任何法律责任。但仍需注意可能存在的例外情况，例如：

第一，穿透公司法人人格向股东追索。如某人在已有债务的情况下，通过将财产转移给新设立公司的方法逃避该既有债务，法院可能判令要求穿透公司面纱。而在实践中该法律原则因要求严格，很少能够被使用。

第二，股东参与到公司有欺诈目的的资产转移当中，或作为不正当的协助者、不正当的收受财产者，或者参与策划该欺诈行为等。

二、董事和公司管理人员的责任

在清盘开始后，董事实际上失去了管理公司的权力，但是由于董事的地位，其需要在以下两种情形下承担责任：一是如果他违反了原本就对公司负有的义务，清盘人代表公司能够向董事进行追责；二是在清盘前和清盘过程中，董事均负有特定的责任。

一方面，董事负有一般的对公司的信义义务，包括为公司利益行使权利，为公司避免利益冲突等，以及其他法定义务，比如董事必须采取一切合理步骤确保公司备存及保留会计记录至少7年（如有），以及必须确保公司按时提交财务报表等。如这些行为已经发生，董事可能需要承担责任。

系列导语

在各类跨境投资的项目中，投资人最担心的问题莫过于被投企业的财务状况出现困境，进而影响其持续经营能力和偿债能力并最终演变为债务危机。这些投资人可能是企业公募或私募债券的持有人、享有抵押品的银团放贷机构、各类融资架构中的夹层债权人，或是享受回购权或强制出售权的权益投资人。

跨境投资项目下的债务重组，往往会涉及多法域下的复杂法律问题、救济方式和司法程序。特别是在典型的境外持股架构下，当开曼公司作为境外母公司出现债务危机时，如何通过BVI及香港子公司逐级下沉债权人的风控或增信机制，如何衔接和落地相关境内外救济措施，如何最终帮助债权人控制或取得境内子公司的资产或其提供的担保品或抵押品，这些问题的妥善解决是债务重组成功的关键。这要求参与跨境债务重组项目的专业执行团队具有跨市场和跨国界的运作能力、多法域的法律和司法实操经验、高效的项目管理能力以及深刻的风险认知和风险反制筹划能力。由于各个法域下的质权之设立、优先顺位和有效性对于债权人和质押权人来说至关重要，加强对主要离岸法域对质押行为的程序性规定和质权有效性的判定认识能有效地防范潜在的交易风险。

Part 1 of this two-part series explored potential legislative changes which could impact the Australian insolvency landscape in 2022 and beyond. Part 2 addresses the recent major developments in case law that have the potential to shape the insolvency landscape in Australia for many years to come.

Financial support for businesses impacted by COVID-19, legislative provisions (such as the statutory relaxation to insolvent trading liability) and general creditor leniency have resulted inhistorically low insolvency appointments during the last two years.

The High Court has handed down the long-awaited decision of Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6, unanimously overturning the decision of the Victorian Court of Appeal. In so doing, the Court held that enforcement of rights under a personal guarantee was unconscionable.

In Walton v ACN 004 410 833 Limited (formerly Arrium Limited) (in liquidation) [2022] HCA 3, the High Court extended the purpose for which, and incidentally parties by whom, public examinations may be used.

For some time, controversy has surrounded the question as to whether unsecured creditors of an insolvent company can utilise set-off under s 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) against unfair preference claims.

Public examinations are a powerful process for a liquidator to explore the reasons for a company’s failure, identify any claims the liquidator or the company might have and assess recoverability prospects following any successful claim.

In a similar vein, liquidators might also obtain document production orders against natural persons and corporate entities. Such document production orders are often obtained in advance of examinations, and can assist the liquidator in its investigations and preparation for the examinations.

The court’s power to overturn the decisions of insolvency practitioners in a company’s external administration was highlighted in the recent case of Tuscan Capital Partners Pty Ltd v Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq), in the matter of Trading Australia Pty Ltd (in liq) (Proof of Debt) [2021] FCA 1061 (Tuscan).

In Australia, s 436A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) provides for the circumstances in which a company may appoint a voluntary administrator. This provision requires the company’s board to resolve that: (a) in the opinion of the directors voting for the resolution, the company is insolvent, or is likely to become insolvent at some future time; and (b) an administrator of the company should be appointed.