We have prepared this Business Law Guide as a general overview of certain legal and business matters that may be relevant to a decision to establish or invest in a business in Canada.
Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220案 (裁决日期：2019年11月1日)
But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238案 (裁决日期：2019年8月2日)
在Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426一案中，当案件所涉债务是一项仲裁协议的标的时，公司法庭改变了原先在这种情况下如何裁定清盘程序的做法（被称为“Lasmos裁决”）。在近期的两起破产案件中，上诉法庭对Lasmos裁决发表了附带意见。
Lasmos案之前的裁决
Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220 (date of judgment 1 November 2019)
But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238 (date of judgment 2 August 2019)
The Companies Court has changed the approach in which winding up proceedings are handled when the alleged debt is the subject of an arbitration agreement in the case of Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426. In two recent bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeal made obiter comments on the Lasmos approach.
In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal to set aside a statutory demand arising out of online forex futures trading debts.
Since China opened its doors to foreign investors around forty years ago, it has been a top recipient for international direct investments. Despite the gradual slowdown of the country’s overall economic growth, foreign interest in China continues to be strong. After a slight decline in 2016, foreign direct investment increased again by 3% to US$134.97 billion in 2018.
实践中，往往会出现在执行过程中，作为被执行人的公司注销的情形。注销是《公司法》规定的使公司实体灭失的一种方式，注销后，该实体将不再存在，依照相关程序法的规定，作为被执行人的公司灭失后，将依法终结诉讼。负债公司多以注销当幌子，进行逃避到期债务之实。在作为被执行人的公司注销，而公司账面仍有剩余财产的情况下，债权人应如何使自己的到期合法债权得到清偿?下面请看一则案例。
【案例】
李某、刘某、朱某原是北京XX有限公司员工。因公司无故拖欠工资，三人向北京市东城区劳动争议仲裁委员会提起仲裁，要求XX公司支付工资及补偿金。仲裁委于2008年8月1日裁决XX公司支付债权人双倍工资、加班费、补偿金，其中应当支付李某2.2余万元、支付刘某2.1余万元、支付朱某1.6余万元。
该裁决生效后，三债权人于2008年8月22日申请法院强制执行。在执行过程中发现XX公司已于2008年8月25日向工商部门申请注销，并提交了清算报告，三位股东正是清算组成员。清算报告中称没有未完结的债权债务关系。公司账面剩余财产为7.5万元，三位股东就出资额对该剩余财产进行了分配。工商部门遂于2008年9月20日核准了清算组注销XX公司的申请，导致法院无法强制执行。
很显然，在上述案例中，债权人可以要求三位股东承担清偿责任。理由如下：
- Background
Company A is a foreign enterprise whose business is the production of certain specialist machinery. In China, only approved entities which are on a list compiled by the department in charge are permitted to manufacture such machinery. Company B, a Chinese enterprise, is one such entity. To enter the Chinese market, company A signed a joint venture agreement with company B in 2007. Each company agreed to contribute capital to establish a joint venture to manufacture such machinery.
Short stories
Amendments to the Czech Insolvency Act 2016
ISSUE FOUR 2017 FUNDING IN FOCUS Are Asian arbitral centres going to surpass the old continent? PwC Damages: an expert’s view Who wins, where and why? Stockholm, Sweden, Scandinavia Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer 60 seconds Q&A with Erin Miller Rankin Brick Court Chambers Competition damages litigation in London pre- and post- Brexit Wilberforce Chambers Getting at trust assets and piercing the corporate veil Disputes funding for corporates CONTENTS Are Asian arbitral centres going to surpass the old continent?