Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited CACV 158/2017 (date of judgment 5 August 2020)1
Introduction
前记
执行是实现生效裁判文书债权的“最后关键一环”，是维护当事人合法权益的“最后一公里”。囿于执行领域纷繁复杂的法律规定以及各地司法实践的尺度不一，执行往往成为争议解决的重点及难点。我们长期专注于执行领域，代理了大量金融资管公司、上市公司的公证债权文书、诉讼/仲裁的执行案件。为此，基于执行实务经验，我们着眼于当前执行领域的热点难点问题，推出执行干货系列专题文章，敬请关注。
专题二
目前，法院通过网络拍卖平台处置财产已成为处置执行财产的主要方式，相比传统拍卖模式而言网络拍卖的效率可能更高，也更有利于保护债权的实现以及债务人的合法权益。近年来，越来越多的破产财产也同样通过网络拍卖平台高效处置。实践中，竞买人经常因为种种原因事后意图“悔拍”并寻求救济。对此，破产网络拍卖相关纠纷究竟属于何种性质？竞买人应选择什么程序进行救济？拍卖公告是否一律不得修改？本文结合司法实践对前述疑问进行单刀直入地解析。
破产网络拍卖的性质
Re Patrick Cowley and Lui Yee Man, Joint and Several Liquidators of the Company [2020] HKCFI 922(date of judgment: 27 May 2020)
In preparation for a post COVID-19 world, Chinese outbound investors have begun to source for bargain deals in other countries, with markets characterised by corporate restructurings, low prices, depressed valuations, distressed assets, and fire sales. In this article, we briefly set out some suggestions for Chinese outbound investors when entering into bargain M&A deals in this unprecedented M&A landscape.
UPDATED 3 AUGUST 2020
Updates marked with *
Updated: Ireland, Israel
We take a look at some of the recent emergency legislation and measures implemented by various nations around the world in response to COVID-19. As this is a rapidly developing crisis, please ensure you keep a close eye on the Lexology Coronavirus hub page for the most up-to-date information.
近期，北京市税务局发布了《关于进一步推进破产便利化 优化营商环境的公告》（2020年第4号，下称“4号公告”）、上海市高级人民法院与上海市税务局印发《关于优化企业破产程序中涉税事项办理的实施意见》（沪高法〔2020〕222号，下称“222号文”），旨在明确破产程序中的涉税事项，充分发挥破产制度在规范市场主体退出方面的重要作用。
破产是解决企业产业深层次矛盾，优化资源配置，提升企业产业质效的重要法治途径。破产程序中涉税事项的处理是重要一环，妥善处理破产事宜无法忽视涉税问题。实践中，我们作为税务律师也经常能接到破产程序中涉税事项的咨询，部分案件中涉税事项甚至成为左右破产程序能否顺利推进的重要因素，其中不乏争议的问题，部分问题可以从两份文件中找到答案或启示，我们在此结合两份文件的亮点与重点，对于破产程序中的涉税相关事项做简要梳理，并探讨合理应对之策。
一 非正常户、发票问题的解决
In addition to cases that are similar to those the previous two batches concerning enforcement against enterprises over pandemic prevention and control materials, the 13 cases in this third batch also contain examples of enterprises not in the pandemic prevention and control materials business resuming work and production. The cases fully shows how the courts used the Internet and telephones to coordinate and negotiate enforcement during the epidemic, thereby keeping public order, minimizing losses and achieving wins for multiple parties.
The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly reshaped the global business landscape. Some companies that only months ago seemed unstoppably profitable have been brought to an existential brink by extended lockdowns, supply chain failures, and other obstacles caused by the pandemic. Other companies who have experienced less disruption (or in some cases windfalls) stand at the threshold of opportunity even as they prepare themselves for the challenges of the 'new normal'.
Introduction
The past decade has witnessed a significant increase in cross-border commerce involving Chinese companies. If these ventures fail, a common dilemma for our clients has been which jurisdiction they should focus their efforts on when enforcing their rights. As we explain below, the success of a cross-jurisdictional recovery claim can often depend on the important tactical decision of focusing on the correct jurisdiction(s) at the outset.
Identify all relevant jurisdictions
近日，香港高等法院原讼法庭夏利士法官在深圳市年富供应链有限公司 (以下简称“深圳年富”)的破产案件（[2020]HKCFI 965）中 (为表述方便，香港公司清盘在本文亦称为“破产”)(以下简称“深圳年富案”)，再次承认和协助了内地的破产程序及破产管理人身份。这是继上海华信国际集团有限公司([2020]HKCFI 167) 的破产案件(以下简称“上海华信案”) 后，香港法院第二次承认和协助内地的破产程序及破产管理人身份。
近半年来，香港法院已经在两起案例中认可了内地法院指定的破产管理人身份并提供司法协助，这不仅进一步巩固了香港法院对内地破产管理人承认和协助的相关法律原则与实务，更适应了内地和香港在破产程序中相互协助的需求，对两地跨境破产协助具有重要的参考价值。
本文将简要介绍香港跨境破产协助的法律要点：