Dissolution is the process of de-registering a company from the company registry at the Department of Business Development (“DBD”). When considering the life cycle of a business operation, the voluntary dissolution by the shareholders appears to be the usual way to end the company’s operations. There are several circumstances that will lead companies to the dissolution and subsequently, the liquidation process. Under Sections 1236 and 1237 of the CCC, a limited company may be dissolved by the following causes:
Highlights
In Short
The Situation: For the first time ever, a court in France has examined the compatibility of the statutory netting safe harbor with the French Constitution. The French High Court of Justice (Cour de cassation) addressed the preliminary question of constitutionality in the context of an insolvency proceeding and handed down its decision on March 6, 2024.
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。
作者：曲淼
引言：2023年12月29日全国人大常委会审议通过的新《公司法》，删除了2018年《公司法》中16个条文，实质性修改了112个条文。其中，新《公司法》对公司存续情况下是否应当赋予公司债权人对未届期出资股东的出资请求权这一焦点问题做出了回应，在“注册资本认缴制“转变为“有期限的认缴制”的大前提下，进一步放宽了股东出资义务加速到期的条件。
原《公司法》体系下的股东出资期限利益：
原《公司法》规定公司注册资本认缴制的目的，是为了减少创业者的资金需求、减轻创业者的资金压力，从而达到鼓励创业、繁荣市场经济的目的。在这一体系下，股东享有出资期限利益，在公司章程规定的出资期限届满前，股东可以以其出资期限利益对抗公司及债权人。但是这一制度在赋予股东出资利益期限的同时也带来了诸多问题。如在股东出资期限尚未届满，公司不具备清偿能力且又未申请破产的情况下，一些股东往往据此规避法院的强制执行。债权人无法依据现有规定主张未出资股东承担责任，其合法权利得不到有效保护。
Following are our summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of January 15, 2024.
HFW DISPUTES DIGEST 2023
Welcome to the second annual Disputes Digest, in which we collate our 2023 global HFW LITIGATION and International Arbitration publications in one place.
This edition includes updates from across our Disputes arena, including England and Wales, BVI, AsiaPac, and the Middle East.
This article will look at the recent decision of David Doyle J in In the Matter of HQP Corporation Limited (in Official Liquidation) (7 July 2023) and its effect on the ability of investors to recover damages from a company in which they have acquired shares as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Introduction
The case involved an application by liquidators for direction in relation to three issues in the winding up of the Company:
In FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (Respondent) v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (Appellant) (Cayman Islands) [2023] UKPC 33, the Privy Council has provided useful guidance about the interplay between an arbitration agreement and exercise of the Cayman court’s powers and discretion to wind up a company on just and equitable grounds.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it has reached a settlement with the bankrupt crypto company Voyager over the company’s alleged deceptive crypto marketing practices. Specifically, the FTC’s complaint alleges that from at least 2018 until its declaration of bankruptcy in July 2022, Voyager enticed consumers with promises that their deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) and were “safe.” However, consumers’ deposits with Voyager were not eligible for FDIC insurance and were not protected in the event that Voyager failed.