英属维尔京群岛（“BVI”）一直积极应对去中心化自治组织（“DAO”）的法律影响，尤其是在破产背景下的资产和负债。虽然BVI没有专门针对DAO的具体立法，但现有法律和法律原则可用于评估DAO资产和负债的处理。

1. 法律结构: 英属维尔京群岛法律没有立法或判例法来定义什么是 DAO。在美国，法院曾考虑过 DAO 成员在某些情况下是否可以被视为合伙关系的问题。然而，迄今为止，这个问题尚未在英属维尔京群岛法院出现。DAO 可以完全去中心化，即由为共同目标而在某些治理协议或规则框架下运作的非法人团体。此外，许多在英属维尔京群岛运营的 DAO 通常以公司或有限合伙企业的形式设立，或者更常见的是，它们的组织方式是，DAO 成员的行动或集体决策通过由代币持有者管理的公司实体（例如通过担保有限公司）进行，以降低这种风险。法律结构会影响破产时资产和负债的处理。如果 DAO 以公司形式注册成立，则通常会遵循《英属维尔京群岛商业公司法》（修订版），该法规定了有偿付能力清算的框架，或遵循《英属维尔京群岛破产法》（修订版），该法规定了无偿付能力清算的框架。

はじめに

コロナ渦におけるゼロゼロ融資（実質無利子・無担保融資）が終了したものの、物価高騰・人手不足等の外的要因も重なって収益が改善されず、ゼロゼロ融資等で増加した金融債務の返済や、税金や社会保険料といった公租公課の納付ができないことが原因で法的整理に至る中小企業・中堅企業等が近年増加しています※1。

　そのような中、東京地方裁判所民事第20部（倒産部）が、今年4月から、負債総額50億円未満の株式会社を対象とする、簡易・迅速な会社更生手続の運用（小規模会社更生）を導入しました※2。

　この小規模会社更生は、公租公課の納付に苦しむ中小企業・中堅企業等の事業再生における選択肢の一つとして注目されます。そこで、本ニュースレターでは、公租公課の納付が困難な中小企業・中堅企業等の状況について紹介した上で、小規模会社更生の概要、その活用方法や今後の検討が期待される点について紹介します。

公租公課の納付が困難な中小企業・中堅企業等の状況

1. 私的整理

This week’s TGIF considers the recent Supreme Court decision of Re ML & NB Pty Ltd [2025] VSC 444. It concerns the extent to which a plaintiff can rely on a statutory demand issued by a supporting creditor to satisfy the presumption of insolvency.

Key takeaways

New Zealand’s unemployment rate rose to 5.2 percent in the June 2025 quarter, according to figures released this week. As the economy takes longer to recover from the recession, costs increase and profit margins tighten, more businesses are facing solvency issues - and it is likely the unemployment figures will be higher in the next quarter. Statistics for 2024 revealed the highest number of formal insolvency appointments for the past 10 years. As of 30 June 2025, that annual figure is on track for another increase.

In a groundbreaking decision of particular importance to participants in Chapter 15 proceedings, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued an opinion making clear that defendants in Chapter 15 proceedings may have Safe Harbor defenses even when a liquidator brings non-U.S. common law claims. This decision, issued on August 5, 2025 in Fairfield Sentry, holds that when a liquidator uses a US Bankruptcy Court to pursue non-U.S. common law claims, it must abide by the safe harbor afforded by Section 546(e) of the U.S.

© WongPartnership LLP DISCLAIMER: This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as or relied upon as legal advice. You should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action or omitting to take action in relation to matters discussed herein. WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005.

The legal framework w.r.t. law of insolvency in India has seen considerable progress since the introduction of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”). The Legislature, taking cue from various judgments passed by the courts and the grey areas identified during the implementation of the provisions of IBC, introduced various amendments from time to time. However, notwithstanding such amendments, various legal questions involving interpretation and implementation of provisions of IBC keep arising posing challenges before the Courts to resolve the same.

In the regime of insolvency and bankruptcy law in India, the question of when and how the liabilities of Personal Guarantors crystallize has become increasingly significant. Recent judgments by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (“NCLAT”) in Shantanu Jagdish Prakash v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT)(Ins.) 1609 of 2024), Mavjibhai Nagarbhai Patel v. State Bank of India & Anr. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) Nos. 1702, 1711 & 1712 of 2024), Asha Basantilal Surana v. State Bank of India & Ors. (Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No.

Voor veel mensen betekent een bestuursfunctie binnen een vereniging een betrokken, maatschappelijk engagement. Maar wie bestuursverantwoordelijkheid op zich neemt, draagt ook juridische risico’s. Zeker wanneer de vereniging in financiële problemen raakt. Wat veel bestuurders niet beseffen, is dat zij onder omstandigheden persoonlijk kunnen worden aangesproken voor financiële tekorten na een faillissement.

For many people, a board position within an association means a committed, civic engagement. But those who assume board responsibility also bear legal risks. Especially when the association gets into financial trouble. What many directors do not realize is that, under circumstances, they can be personally liable for financial shortfalls after a bankruptcy.

This article offers insight into when and why directors of associations can be held liable, what legal frameworks underlie this, and how to reduce the risk of personal claims.