Our analysis of a recent court judgment in the ongoing liquidation of the high profile crypto-asset hedge fund Three Arrows Capital is by Nicholas Brookes and Romauld Johnson, part of Ogier's BVI team representing the joint liquidators.
Read our update on crypto insolvency issues from Three Arrows, which illustrates implications of the judgment including
一、前言
随着现代企业制度的不断发展，规范公司架构及配套体系的需求不断增强，同时考虑到要切实维护公司、股东、债权人、职工等多方主体的合法权益，公司法在此背景下历经数次修订。2023年12月29日，全国人大常委会审议通过了最新修订后的《中华人民共和国公司法》（下称“新公司法”），并将于2024年7月1日起施行。新公司法进行了多方面的修改，将对公司破产、解散等相关业务产生新的要求和影响。本文以此为视角，立足于当前公司破产、解散业务之实践，简要分析新公司法对实务可能产生的影响。
二、新公司法的主要修订及对公司破产或解散的影响
1. 强化破产申请对职工意见的关注
现行公司法
新公司法
第十八条：公司依照宪法和有关法律的规定，通过职工代表大会或者其他形式，实行民主管理。
公司研究决定改制以及经营方面的重大问题、制定重要的规章制度时，应当听取公司工会的意见，并通过职工代表大会或者其他形式听取职工的意见和建议。
作者：曲淼
引言：2023年12月29日全国人大常委会审议通过的新《公司法》，删除了2018年《公司法》中16个条文，实质性修改了112个条文。其中，新《公司法》对公司存续情况下是否应当赋予公司债权人对未届期出资股东的出资请求权这一焦点问题做出了回应，在“注册资本认缴制“转变为“有期限的认缴制”的大前提下，进一步放宽了股东出资义务加速到期的条件。
原《公司法》体系下的股东出资期限利益：
原《公司法》规定公司注册资本认缴制的目的，是为了减少创业者的资金需求、减轻创业者的资金压力，从而达到鼓励创业、繁荣市场经济的目的。在这一体系下，股东享有出资期限利益，在公司章程规定的出资期限届满前，股东可以以其出资期限利益对抗公司及债权人。但是这一制度在赋予股东出资利益期限的同时也带来了诸多问题。如在股东出资期限尚未届满，公司不具备清偿能力且又未申请破产的情况下，一些股东往往据此规避法院的强制执行。债权人无法依据现有规定主张未出资股东承担责任，其合法权利得不到有效保护。
TM rights in ‘Shakti Bhog’ controversy amid insolvency proceedings Amid the ongoing criminal proceedings alleging fraud and money laundering against officers of the Shakti Bhog companies and of creditor bank employees, insolvency proceedings are underway and have been for some time. A dispute concerning ownership of intellectual property rights in a valuable trade mark is part of the insolvency process.
Background
The Insolvency Practice Schedule (Corporations) (“IPS”) was inserted into the Corporations Act 2001 (“Act”) by the Insolvency Law Reform Act 2016 (Cth). Under section 70-45 of the IPS, a creditor can request an external administrator of a company to give company information to the creditor. The impetus behind introducing this section was trying to achieve greater transparency for creditors who, through their inspection of the administrator’s files, can monitor the external administrator’s conduct.
Under the Law on Bankruptcy 2014, creditors (chủ nợ) of a bankrupt enterprise include unsecured creditors, partially secured creditors (chủ nợ có bảo đảm một phần) and secured creditors (chủ nợcó bảo đảm). While it is not entirely clear, it appears that partially secured creditors are considered as a separate class of creditors and have their own rights during a bankruptcy proceeding.
Under the Law on Bankruptcy 2014,
This is the fourth in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.
The focus of this fourth article is on how federal courts have inherent authority to appoint special masters—and why that inherent authority should not be denied in bankruptcy cases.[Fn. 1]
Inherent Authority of Courts of Equity
1. The Joint Official Liquidators of FTX Digital Markets Ltd. (Brian Simms KC, Peter Greaves and Kevin Cambridge) (“the JOLS”) have entered into a Global Settlement Agreement (“GSA”) with the Chapter 11 Debtors of the FTX Companies ( approximately 130 FTX Companies which filed for Chapter 11 on 11th November 2022).
The rights of secured creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) have been a matter of continuous litigation and uncertainty. Early on, the challenge presented itself when during the insolvency resolution of Essar steel (India) Ltd., the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) directed the distribution of resolution plan proceeds equally amongst all classes of creditors, including financial, operational, secured and unsecured creditors.
The Hong Kong High Court has given a rare order for modifications to a scheme of arrangement after it had been implemented incorrectly by the scheme administrators. Drawing on instances in which the English courts have sanctioned modifications after approval by scheme creditors, the court held that the same principles apply here.