The perception of Australia as being a relatively “risky” place to sit on a Board has generally focused on the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.^[1]

For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.

Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.

The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.

The Phoenixing Bill

Overview

The perception of Australia as a relatively “risky” place to sit on a board, arises in no small part from the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.[1]

Administration and deeds of company arrangement have continued to have significant influence on major restructurings in the Australian market. In larger restructurings, administrations represent significant transactions where capital is deployed strategically to acquire businesses at significant discounts. A sound understanding of the procedures is key to private equity players for many reasons. Portfolio companies can be exposed to administrations where suppliers, customers or competitors experience financial difficulties.

The dialogue is changing yet is the law enabling the practical change Directors need?

Achieving significant cultural shift in any business environment is no easy task, so it’s by no means ground-breaking to declare that after 1 year in operation, it still cannot be said that the new “Safe Harbour” legislation has resulted in a cultural change among directors.

It was first published by the Governance Institute of Australia.

The special purpose liquidators of Queensland Nickel Pty Ltd (in liq) have been successful in their application in the Supreme Court of Queensland for freezing orders against Mr Clive Palmer and several companies which he controls.[1]

Background

本文主要讨论公司型基金、合伙型基金自行清算的主要流程，并就基金自行清算出现僵局等情形时，如何申请法院启动基金强制清算程序的主要问题作初步探讨。

基金清算适用的法律

对于公司型基金的清算，其主要适用《公司法》以及《最高人民法院关于适用＜中华人民共和国公司法＞若干问题的规定（二）》（下称“《公司法司法解释二》”）《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》（下称“《强制清算纪要》”）以及部分高院出台的相关审判指导。

对于合伙型基金的清算，除适用《合伙企业法》外，可参照公司法律的有关规定。对此，《民法总则》第一百零八条规定，“非法人组织除适用本章规定外，参照适用本编第三章第一节的有关规定”；第三编第一节对法人清算作出了相关规定，其中第七十一条规定，“法人的清算程序和清算组职权，依照有关法律的规定；没有规定的，参照适用公司法律的有关规定”。例如，北京一中院在（2020）京01清申27号《民事裁定书》中基于上述规定，认定合伙型基金的清算应当参照《公司法》的相关规定进行。

除前述规定外，中国证监会、中基协的相关规定，以及其他行业自治组织的相关规定，亦可作为基金清算的依据。

前记

执行是实现生效裁判文书债权的“最后关键一环”，是维护当事人合法权益的“最后一公里”。囿于执行领域纷繁复杂的法律规定以及各地司法实践的尺度不一，执行往往成为争议解决的重点及难点。我们长期专注于执行领域，代理了大量金融资管公司、上市公司的公证债权文书、诉讼/仲裁的执行案件。为此，基于执行实务经验，我们着眼于当前执行领域的热点难点问题，推出执行干货系列专题文章，敬请关注。

专题二

目前，法院通过网络拍卖平台处置财产已成为处置执行财产的主要方式，相比传统拍卖模式而言网络拍卖的效率可能更高，也更有利于保护债权的实现以及债务人的合法权益。近年来，越来越多的破产财产也同样通过网络拍卖平台高效处置。实践中，竞买人经常因为种种原因事后意图“悔拍”并寻求救济。对此，破产网络拍卖相关纠纷究竟属于何种性质？竞买人应选择什么程序进行救济？拍卖公告是否一律不得修改？本文结合司法实践对前述疑问进行单刀直入地解析。

破产网络拍卖的性质