The Court of Appeal has resolved previously conflicting case law to confirm that a bankrupt cannot be obliged to crystallise his pension benefits in order to produce income to pay off creditors.
In the recent case of HMRC v Munir & Others[1], HMRC successfully applied to the Court for committal of three company officers for contempt of court where an order appointing a provisional liquidator was knowingly breached.
Background
In Bailey & Others (Joint Liquidators of D&D Wines International Limited) v Angove’s Pty Limited1, the Court of Appeal overturned a decision of the High Court, and so permitted the liquidator of an insolvent agent to recover funds due to it from end-customers despite the agency having been terminated.
Background
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’)
1. Can I lock the tenant out of the property until they pay?
No. If a tenant has been placed in administration then there will be a moratorium in place. This gives a company some breathing space. Rights against the company, such as forfeiture or conducting legal proceedings, can only be pursued with either the consent of the administrator or a court order. As noted last week, changing the locks is likely to forfeit the lease. Unless you intend to forfeit and obtain the necessary permission to do so, you should not change the locks.
The recent case of Re China Bozza Development Holdings Ltd [2021] HKLRD 977 demonstrated the attitude and increased scrutiny of the Hong Kong Companies’ Court towards offshore soft-touch provisional liquidation.
The leading authority on the meaning of soft-touch is the British Virgin Islands case of Re Constellation Overseas Ltd BVIHC (Com) 2018/0206,0207,0208, 0210 and 0212 . (§3) :
Part 1: Introduction to orphan SPV repackaging transactions for Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China clients
This article was written by Richard Mazzochi, Minny Siu, Angus Sip and Ryan Iskandar
2019年11月14日，最高院正式发布第九次全国法院民商事审判工作会议的会议纪要——《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（简称“《九民纪要》”）。
对资产证券化圈的许多机构从业者，《九民纪要》具体有什么样的意义可能不太熟悉。在这里，我们还是借用引言中的一句话来体现它的意义：
“对当前民商事审判工作中的一些疑难法律问题取得了基本一致的看法。”
《九民纪要》的条款中，与金融业务有关的就可以说是包罗万象。但在正式看条款和案例之前，不妨先再来品读一下它的引言部分：
这些统领性原则，结合一些代表性案例，我们认为，会赋予证券化业务更多的司法支持。具体体现在：
中英企业交易中的“五行”元素——第一部分：金
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。本系列五篇文章围绕“五行”的各个元素展开探讨，指出了供应商在和英国客户做生意过程中面临的关键风险，以及供应商如何才能最好地保护自己，从而确保其商务活动和商业关系的和谐。第一个元素“金”确保供应商得到应得的货款，避免或尽量减少风险、困难和难以解决的困境。
金：及时获得全额付款，让您的业务和商业关系发展壮大
在协助我们的国际贸易客户处理的各种事项中，最常见的是追款。因此，我们建议所有供应商在签订合同或根据标准商业条款向客户供货时，确保在客户违约的情况下尽可能让自己处于最有利的境地。
对供应商而言，最有利的索赔是财产索赔。根据所有权保留条款，在客户未付清货款前，供应商仍对交付给客户的货物拥有所有权。如果客户破产，供应商有权收回货物（或收取货款）。
其他合同保护措施包括：
回购条款作为资管产品中常见的增信措施，资管新规对其有何影响？
资管新规之前，回购条款的效力得到法院普遍认可
回购条款本质上是一种逆向的、独立的交易行为，属于合同债权的范畴。其虽然具有一定的债权保障作用，但不构成债权担保的从属性，更不具有担保物权的优先受偿功能。因此，回购条款并非我国的法定担保形式。
资管新规之前，司法实践中，法院在考察当事人意思表示和内容的合法性基础上，一般会认可回购条款的合法有效性。
在“重庆国际信托股份有限公司与安徽三联实业发展有限公司等合同纠纷案”（〔2015〕渝高法民初字第00025号）中，法院认为，“《资产收益权转让及回购协议》系当事人的真实意思表示，不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，合法有效。结合信托公司提供的营业执照和金融许可证上载明的内容，信托公司签订的上述合同不违反金融监管部门核准的经营范围；且本案合同所涉的借款资金来源并不影响借款合同本身的效力。”