在当前的投融资环境下，国资背景的投资方常常承担着地方政府的返投任务，对被投企业的注册地点存在特定诉求，因此，若被投企业未注册在此类投资方期待的特定地区，则投资方可能会要求被投企业迁址以实现当地的招商引资。市场上已出现部分项目的投资方以此作为投资交割的前提条件。

优质企业无疑都是各地的“心头肉”，能为当地带来税收效益、工作岗位等。因此，企业的迁出之路可能面临迁出地政府“不放手”、迁出和迁入程序衔接不顺畅等一系列疑难问题，可能拉长迁址进度，甚至实质上无法最终完成迁址。

为协助企业顺利实现“迁址”目的，我们在相关交易中对企业迁址的命题进行重新思考和思路转换。事实上，除了直接变更注册地址，企业也可考虑通过股权重组进行股权结构的调整，以满足投资方对于变更融资主体及后续上市主体所在地的需求。但此等“重组式迁址”也并非一路坦途，如有不慎，同样可能面临法律和税务的障碍和风险，因此需要提前对这类重组交易进行审慎考量和规划。

一、直接迁址的障碍和难点

As most readers know, Subchapter V of Chapter 11 is the small business reorganization provisions enacted in the Small Business Reorganization Act (SBRA) of 2019. SBRA made major changes to how small business cases are handled in an effort to streamline the process, reduce administrative expenses and result in more confirmed Chapter 11 plans. Prior to SBRA and even continuing after enactment of SBRA, small businesses could elect treatment as a small business debtor under Chapter 11.

The High Court has ordered two former directors of British Home Stores ("BHS") to pay equitable compensation of £110 million in respect of misfeasance claims brought by the former retailer's joint liquidators: Wright v Chappell [2024] EWHC 2166 (Ch).

Introduction

In certain circumstances, the liquidator of a British Virgin Islands (“BVI”) company may be able to set aside certain transactions which took place in the lead up to the company’s liquidation. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a BVI company that they are aware of the statutory powers available to the liquidator.

Preparing a business for an exit can be a complex and time-consuming task.

Bij onroerende goederen, kan de situatie ontstaan dat tijdens de bouw een hypotheekrecht wordt gevestigd ten behoeve van de bank. Als de opdrachtgever failliet gaat, en de aannemer oefent het retentierecht uit, wie mag dan het onroerend goed verkopen? De Hoge Raad heeft hier onlangs uitgebreid antwoord op gegeven.

When a company is in financial distress, its directors will face difficult choices. Should they trade on to trade out of the company's financial difficulties or should they file for insolvency? If they delay filing and the company goes into administration or liquidation, will the directors be at risk from a wrongful trading claim by the subsequently appointed liquidator? Once in liquidation, will they be held to have separately breached their duties as directors and face a misfeasance claim? If they file precipitously, will creditors complain they did not do enough to save the business?

A warm welcome to the Summer edition of Conyers Coverage. The whirlwind that is the Cayman Islands (re)insurance industry continues to blow with gusto! To keep you updated on recent developments, we include various items from our Insurance, Regulatory and Litigation teams, we ponder the possibilities and implications for the Cayman Islands in potentially securing Qualified Jurisdiction status with the NAIC and lots more beyond. We think there’s something for everyone in our latest edition so please dig in.

To NAIC or Not to NAIC?

The £150 million judgment makes clear the full impact of the trading misfeasance offence for directors.

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: