Following the recent conflicting decisions in HQP Corporation (in official liquidation)1(HQP) and Direct Lending Income Feeder Fund, Ltd (in official liquidation)2 (DLI), Simon Dickson and Laura Stone of Mourant Ozannes (Cayman) LLP consider whether shareholder misrepresentation claims can be admitted in a Cayman Islands liquidation.

引言

在新《公司法》实施的第一天，即2024年7月1日，北京市西城区人民法院微信公众号发布了其审结的首例适用新《公司法》第54条规定的加速到期规则的案件。

在该案中，经债权人申请，西城法院在执行程序中追加案涉公司的股东张某为被执行人。进而，西城法院根据新《公司法》第54条，对案涉公司股东张某适用加速到期规则，判决其履行提前缴纳出资的债务，在其未出资的范围内向债权人承担补充赔偿责任。

一、西城法院案例简析[1]

（一）案情概要

李某系案涉公司的前员工。因该公司拖欠工资，李某提起劳动仲裁。经仲裁委调解，双方达成调解协议，约定：公司应于2023年4月底前支付拖欠李某的工资70,000余元。随后，仲裁委据此出具了《调解书》。

因该公司未履行《调解书》项下的付款义务，李某以该公司为被执行人向西城法院提出强制执行申请。由于该公司名下没有可供执行的财产，西城法院裁定终结本次执行程序。

The Small Company Administrative Rescue Process (SCARP) was first introduced on 7 December 2021, to provide a quicker and more affordable formal restructuring process to businesses in Ireland. SCARP allows businesses to restructure their debts by agreeing to a rescue plan with their creditors.

Having caught your eye with the catchy heading, don’t stop reading if you are involved in the management or directorship of any business in the Pacific.

The recent case of Re UKCloud Ltd (in liquidation) [2024] EWHC 1259 (Ch) (24 May 2024) looked at whether a charge over Internet Protocol (IP) Addresses was a fixed or floating charge. Notwithstanding that the charging document purported to create a fixed charge over such asset, the High Court concluded that it was a floating charge primarily because the control provisions in the charging document were not complied with or enforced in practice.

1. はじめに

マレーシアでは、Companies (Amendment) Act 2024(以下｢本改正法｣といいます。)が、一部の条項を除き 2024 年 4 月 1 日に施行されています。本改正法は、マレーシア会社法(Companies Act 2016)に規定されているリストラクチャリング・企業再建手続の強化に焦点が当てられており、スキームオブアレンジメント (Scheme  of  Arrangement)、更生管財手続(Judicial  Management)及び会社任意整理(Corporate  Voluntary Arrangement)において手続の明確化や新制度が導入されています  。今回の改正は、シンガポールにおける 2017 年・2020 年の倒産法改正や、2020 年に行われた英国倒産法改正を参考にした部分も多く 、また債務者フレンドリーな改正が多いという点では、近年の国際的な倒産法制改正の潮流にも沿うものとなります。本稿では、マレーシア法改正による企業再建手続の変更点のうち実務的に重要なポイントについてご紹介します。

2. 保全命令制度の改正

我们在前面的文章中介绍了航运企业跨境破产时与船舶扣押相关的法律问题（参见：视点 | 航运企业跨境破产与船舶扣押的冲突与协调——海事海商X破产系列文章（四），实际上司法实务中，国内法院在处理破产航运企业船舶扣押和拍卖时存在的争议同样不少，破产法律和海商事法律在对船舶的保全和执行问题上产生了交叉和冲突，给司法实践带来诸多困境。本文将结合我们承办的有关案例、其他典型案例和实务界的研究成果，对国内法院破产程序中的船舶扣押和拍卖问题进行讨论。

一、破产程序中船舶扣押与拍卖问题的司法实务样本

对于破产程序中船舶扣押与拍卖的问题，司法实践存在不同的处理模式，主要包括：

（一）因船舶优先权提起的诉讼，已进入拍卖程序的船舶，不中止执行

This writer recently encountered a case: a company (hereinafter referred to as “Company A”) with a large amount of registered capital, felling such large, registered capital was unnecessary, reduced it. In the process of reduction, the capital reduction information was only announced in local newspaper but not notified to every single creditor. One shareholder of Company A is a limited partnership (hereinafter referred to as “Partnership B”).

The Employment (Collective Redundancies and Miscellaneous Provisions) and Companies (Amendment) Act 2024 (Act) has been signed into law but awaits a commencement order to bring it into operation.

In summary, the Act amends the Companies Act 2014 (Companies Act) by modifying the attribution test for related companies to contribute to the debts of the company being wound up, broadening the operative time for unfair preferences, and varying the test for reckless trading.

1. Related company contribution

Switzerland has a reputation for high-quality banking – holding significant foreign assets and offering a fairly pro-enforcement regime. However, gaps between the different legal cultures means recovering Swiss assets to satisfy foreign judgments from common law jurisdictions may be difficult . Here, we investigate possible solutions.

Supreme Court Case 5A_999/2022 dated 20 February 2024