In Pharmagona Limited v Taheri,(1) the High Court refused to seal and issue a contempt application as the breach, if it had occurred, was only technical, and it was therefore inappropriate for the application to succeed.

Facts

Company Insolvencies

One of the criticisms that is often made of the UK’s complex insolvency legislation is that it is too easy for the directors of a company to put it into liquidation or administration, ‘dump’ the company’s debts and then effectively start the same business again under the guise of a new company. Such phoenixism has often been of concern to HMRC both in the civil and criminal fields and prosecutions have been made against directors who have undertaken such activities on a repeated basis.

Personal Liability Notices (‘PLNs’)

What are the proposed changes to rules on transfer of ownership?

The key takeaway

The Law Commission’s proposed changes are likely to improve consumers’ odds of owning goods bought online in the event of retailer insolvency, even before they have left the retailer’s possession.

The background

A recent High Court case involving unlawful loans to directors illustrates the potential pitfalls involved in calculating limitation periods, and the circumstances in which the usual six year statutory limitation period will not apply to a recovery claim against a fiduciary.

Facts

Broadside Colours and Chemicals Ltd was a family firm supplying dyes to the textile trade. The directors were Geoffrey Button, his wife Catherine Button, and their son James Button. Only the father and son were shareholders.

An application to admit witness evidence outside the directions timetable should be treated like an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 according to the High Court in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd v Langhelle.

Facts

On 21 May 2010, Justice Floyd handed down his judgment in Bloomsbury International Ltd (in administration) v Mark Alan Holyoake.1 The case sheds light on the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a cross-undertaking provided by administrators on behalf of an insolvent company to be fortifi ed by a bank guarantee.

Facts

In March 2020, Business Secretary Alok Sharma announced that provisions on wrongful trading would be suspended. The move came as part of a wider package of measures that sought to provide assistance to businesses – and their beleaguered boards – experiencing financial distress due to Covid-19.

Now set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), which was passed on 26 June 2020, the provisions adapt the wrongful trading regime making directors’ liability for the “relevant period” unlikely.

Why does it matter?

在与向英国供货的国际公司合作的过程中，我们发现了一些常见问题。在上一篇文章中，我们研究了客户可能面临的破产程序类型。在“五行”系列第四篇文章中，我们围绕“火”元素来说明破产执业者在进入破产程序时拥有的重大权力：调查不当行为，并将资产收回统一偿还债权人。

火：破产执业者对债权人欺诈性交易的重大权力

破产执业者(不论是清算人或管理人)可以向法院申请撤销在公司进入破产程序前进行的特定交易。通过这种方式，可以收回资产或资金，统一向债权人偿付。下列情形属于“先前的”或“可审查”的交易：

1. 公司的资产或财产被低价出售；

2. 公司在进入破产程序前给予某债权人优先权，使其处于比其他债权人更有利的地位；

3. 公司订立了敲诈性信贷交易（交易条款有严重的敲诈性）；

4. 公司设立了无效浮动抵押，即为已发放的贷款或已提供的货物及服务的成本提供担保；

5. 公司订立的交易具有欺诈债权人的明确目的，即：使公司的资产脱离破产执业者和债权人的控制范围。

不同类型的可审查交易有不同的时间要求。例如，低价出售必须发生在公司进入破产程序前的两年内。

公司资本充足是指股东实缴的出资与公司的经营规模相适应，以确保公司有充足的资本应对经营风险、偿付到期债务，与之相匹配的法律规范就是公司资本充足制度。近年来，随着市场经济的发展，立法机关改变了法定资本制的立场，在司法实践中，公司资本充足制度也呈现出渐见宽松的趋势。

一、《公司法》多次修改公司资本制度，大幅放宽了资本管制

1993年12月颁行的《公司法》采取了严格的法定资本制度。

2005年10月修订的《公司法》在保持法定资本制度的同时，降低了设立公司的资本门槛，将严格的法定资本制度修改为法定资本分期缴纳的资本制度。

2013年12月修正的《公司法》大幅修改了公司资本制度，将实缴登记制改为认缴登记制（特殊行业除外），取消了注册资本的最低限额、分期认缴期限、首付出资比例及出资财产形式的限制等规定，改由股东在公司章程中自行约定，基本完成从法定资本制到授权资本制的转变。

2018年10月修改的《公司法》增加了允许上市公司回购本公司股份的情形，并实际上赋予上市公司回购股份的自主决定权（“上市公司为维护公司价值及股东权益所必需”），还简化了股份回购的决策程序，提高了公司持有本公司股份的数额上限，延长了公司持有所回购股份的期限。

一、嵌套的本质：收益权的收益权

嵌套，根据资管新规第二十二条和第二十七条的表述，是指甲资管产品投资乙资管产品的份额。即通过一项资产所设立的产品成为了另外一个产品投资的对象，形成了产品之中还包含产品的现象。

资产端的嵌套的本质上是以收益权为中心的权利虚化与重叠。试看下述两例：

图一

（2016）最高法民终215号案（下称“215号案”，见图一）中，定向资管计划从某投资公司受让了私募债券的收益权，而某银行又从定向资管计划受让了该资管计划的收益权，即“私募债券收益权的收益权”。其中，“私募债券收益权”是在“私募债券”这一概念中分离和抽象出来的虚化标的，“私募债券收益权的收益权”则是在“私募债券收益权”基础上进一步抽象出来的虚化标的，构成 “二重虚化的合同标的”。该案中的多层嵌套结构，如我们之前在《“收益权”创制问题的旧题新解》中分析，本质上就是以高度重合的标的进行的叠加式融资交易。

图二