In Sian Participation Corp. (In Liquidation) v- Halimeda International Limited BVIHCMAP2021/00171 ("Sian"), the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal again had occasion to consider (amongst a number of other things) the interrelationship between an arbitration clause in a loan agreement and the Court's jurisdiction to appoint liquidators to a company under the Insolvency Act 2003.

When lenders use an aggressive strategy to deal with a financially troubled borrower that ultimately files for bankruptcy protection, stakeholders in the case, including chapter 11 debtors, trustees, committees, and even individual creditors or shareholders, frequently pursue causes of action against the lenders in an effort to augment or create recoveries.

Whether a contract is "executory" such that it can be assumed, rejected, or assigned in bankruptcy is a question infrequently addressed by the circuit courts of appeals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided some rare appellate court-level guidance on the question in Matter of Falcon V, L.L.C., 44 F.4th 348 (5th Cir. 2022). The Fifth Circuit affirmed lower-court rulings determining that a surety contract was not executory because the surety had already posted irrevocable surety bonds and did not owe further performance to the debtors.

Perhaps given the relative rarity of solvent-debtor cases during the nearly 45 years since the Bankruptcy Code was enacted, a handful of recent high-profile court rulings have addressed whether a solvent chapter 11 debtor is obligated to pay postpetition, pre-effective date interest ("pendency interest") to unsecured creditors to render their claims "unimpaired" under a chapter 11 plan, and if so, at what rate. This question was recently addressed by two federal circuit courts of appeals. In In re PG&E Corp., 46 F.4th 1047 (9th Cir.

Corporate insolvency numbers continued to appear artificially low in 2022. The expectation is that they will rise once businesses need to deal with the aftermath of Government pandemic supports and, in particular, start to pay warehoused taxes.

In the recent judgement of In the matter of SPARC Group Limited (en désastre) [2022] JRC 194 (SPARC Group), the Royal Court of Jersey considered the appropriate test for the making of a disqualification order against a director, with the stark nature of the facts justifying a lengthy term of disqualification.

Background 

The application for a disqualification order was made by the Viscount, in respect of Andrew Jeremy Mills (Mr Mills), who was the sole director of SPARC Group Limited (the Company), a property development business. 

The Irish High Court (Court) has pierced the corporate veil in Powers -v- Greymountain Management Ltd [In Liquidation] & Ors [2022] IEHC 599, to hold passive resident directors and non-resident shadow directors personally liable for funds lost to investors as a result of fraud.

The Facts

Overview of this submission

在争议解决过程中，债权人可能会面临一些公司法人债务人无法偿还债务的情形。在此情况下，债权人是否可以要求该公司股东一并承担责任呢？这还是要看要求股东承担责任有没有任何合同的依据或法律的依据。

从合同方面来看，这主要看双方之间的约定，如在合同签署时是否有一并要求股东提供担保或股东是否也是合同的一方，如无相关的约定，则只能看法律方面的依据了。

从法律方面来看，这主要看两个情形，一，如果该公司股东尚未出资完成的话，债权人是否可以要求该股东针对未出资部分承担责任；二，是否存在可以否认公司人格的情形。

一、要求未出资完成的股东承担部分责任

根据《最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国公司法》若干问题的规定（二）》（下称“司法解释二”）第二十二条、《最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国公司法》若干问题的规定（三）》（下称“司法解释三”）第十三条及第十四条，以及《企业破产法》第三十五条的规定，在以下几种情形下，债权人可以请求该股东在其未出资本息范围内对公司债务不能清偿的部分承担连带清偿责任或补充赔偿责任：

(1) 公司解散或破产清算时股东尚未缴纳出资（包括已到期的和未到期的）；

(2) 股东未履行或未全面履行出资义务；

(3) 股东抽逃出资的（针对抽逃出资本息部分）。

In the course of dispute resolution, a creditor may be confronted with a situation where the corporate debtor is unable to repay its debts. In this case, can the creditor hold the shareholders of the company liable as well? This still depends on whether there is any contractual or legal basis for holding the shareholders liable.