Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli details a case where the court considered the issue of protecting assets that are subject to a proprietary claim.
A High Court ruling regarding frozen assets can be seen as a positive outcome for both the claimant and potential claimants in future such cases.
The ruling has shown that the courts will be robust when it comes to protecting assets over which a proprietary claim is being made.
Case Background
一、模拟案例
A公司看好B公司的发展前景，意欲与其实际控制人张三签订投资协议，由A公司向B公司增资。同时为确保自己的投资安全，A公司与张三同时约定，股权回购条件成就时，张三须向A公司回购股份。合同签订后，A公司依约向B公司汇入投资款。然而由于市场环境突然变化，B公司由盈利转为亏损，股权回购条件触发，A公司向张三主张股权回购。此时A公司发现，张三已经与其配偶协议离婚且净身出户，放弃了较大数额夫妻共同财产的所有权。此时，A公司应当如何保护自己的债权？
站在A公司要求债务得到清偿的角度，存在以下几种可能。如果张三与A公司签订协议时，提供了财产为A公司设立担保，那么A公司可以就张三所提供的财产行使担保物权。如果有第三人为张三的债务提供保证，那么A公司可以要求第三人承担保证责任。如果A公司有证据能够证明案涉债务成立夫妻共同债务，即使张三已经与其配偶离婚，A公司也可以追讨张三及其配偶的夫妻共同财产，使自己的债权得以实现。如果A公司无证据证明案涉债务成立夫妻共同债务，或者法院认为案涉债务不成立夫妻共同债务，A公司还有一种选择：撤销张三在离婚协议中放弃夫妻共同财产的行为，使得张三财产得到恢复，增强其偿债能力。A公司撤销张三放弃夫妻共同财产行为的权利，在法律上被称为债权人撤销权。
二、债权人撤销权的法律规定
On 27 July 2022, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Zoom Communications Private Limited v Par Excellence Real Estate Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 619 of 2022 upheld the order of the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) dated 17 May 2022 dismissing an application to initiate Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) on the ground that the debt appeared suspicious and collusive in nature.
Background
When a company is insolvent, the directors of a company are under a duty to protect the interests of the company’s creditors. Directors can therefore be liable for the actions they take before a company stops trading and also during insolvency. This includes:
(a) Wrongful trading If directors continue to run a business and incur further credits and debts despite knowing there was no way of the company avoiding insolvency, they may be liable for wrongful trading.
A bankruptcy court ruled that a creditor didn’t need to seek derivative standing to sue a liquidating trustee. The creditor, himself a trustee of the debtor’s employee stock-option plan, had standing to sue without prior court permission because his suit wasn’t brought on behalf of the bankruptcy estate. In re Foods, Inc., Case No. 14-02689, Adv. Pro. No. 21-3022, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 2331 (Bankr. S.D. Iowa Aug. 23, 2022).
Introduction
On July 29, 2022, Laurie S.
The corporate insolvency statistics for Q2 2022 paint a worrying picture for UK businesses. With inflation at a 40-year high, fuelled by soaring gas and electricity bills, food prices and wage increases, the cost of living crisis is taking hold across the economy.
On 27 July 2022, the European Union (Preventative Restructuring) Regulations (the Regulations) were introduced which gave effect to EU Directive 2019/1023 on restructuring and insolvency[1] (the Directive). The Directive’s principal objective is to ensure that all member states have comparable and effective frameworks in place for early warning and prevention of corporate insolvency.
Some 12 months ago, following the publication of that year’s Courts Service Annual Report, we suggested that 2020 would be remembered as a year like none other. However, a year later, the publication of the Courts Service Annual Report for 2021 (Report) describes a year of legal activity, in a debt recovery context, that very closely mirrors 2020.