The judgement raises important questions for directors faced with substantial liabilities

The Federal Court of Australia recently determined an application brought by the administrators of a company in voluntary administration seeking judicial guidance on how to deal with claims for costs and interests resulting from two prior arbitrations. The key issue was whether the costs and interests awarded in the previous arbitrations were admissible to proof in the administration of the company, having regard to the fact that the relevant arbitral awards were made after the appointment of administrators.

The Court made a distinction between the two arbitrations as follows:

The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services (the Committee) has delivered its report following an inquiry into the “effectiveness of Australia’s corporate insolvency laws in protecting and maximising value for the benefit of all interested parties and the economy”.

The English Court of Appeal has clarified the interpretation of two aspects of s.423 of the Insolvency Act 1986, the legislation which provides a mechanism for the avoidance of transactions which have been made for the purpose of defrauding creditors:Invest Bank PSC v Ahmad Mohammad El-Husseini [2023] EWCA Civ 555.

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm

Entre otras disposiciones, el RDL 5/2023 contiene una serie de medidas para la transposición de la Directiva (UE) 2019/2121 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 27 de noviembre de 2019, en lo que atañe a las transformaciones, fusiones y escisiones transfronterizas intracomunitarias, estructurándose en cuatro títulos, que suponen una nueva regulación de las modificaciones estructurales de las sociedades mercantiles.

The Court of Appeal has set aside a freezing order obtained by a provisional liquidator within winding up proceedings, on the basis that the cross-undertaking in damages given by him was inadequate because it was limited to the amount recovered for the estate. The liquidator had not discharged the burden of showing good reason to depart from the “default position” that a cross-undertaking should be unlimited in amount: Hunt v Ubhi [2023] EWCA Civ 417.

スタートアップ（ベンチャー企業）において重要なエクイティ・インセンティブであ るストックオプション（SO）のうち、税制適格 SO の要件の一つとして、1 株当たりの 権利行使価額として、その新株予約権に係る契約（付与（割当）契約）を締結した時に おける発行会社の 1 株当たりの価額に相当する金額（時価）以上であることが必要とさ れています2。この点につき、従前、種類株式（優先株式）を発行しているスタートアッ プが、普通株式を目的とする税制適格 SO を発行する際の普通株式の 1 株当たりの価額 に相当する金額（時価）の算定ルールが明確ではありませんでした。

In Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited [2023] HKCFI 1443, the Hong Kong Companies Court (the “Court“) made a winding up order against the Company on the basis that it failed to pay security in time. In considering the Company’s opposition grounds, the Court commented that it retains discretion to wind up a company in cases involving an arbitration clause.

The High Court has held that certain assets sold by a company around the time of its administration were subject to a fixed charge rather than a floating charge and as such, the sale proceeds were not to be distributed to preferential creditors or unsecured creditors: Avanti Communications Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 940 (Ch).