On 11 December 2014, Justice Croft of the Victorian Supreme Court delivered judgment approving the settlement of multiple class actions brought by investors in managed investment schemes operated by an entity of the agribusiness Great Southern Group in 2005 and 2006.

After 448 days in court, over 85,000 documents and more than 10 judgments, a special bench of the Western Australian Court of Appeal handed down its decision in Westpac Banking Corporation v The Bell Group Ltd (in liq) (No.3) [2012] WASCA 157 (Bell Appeal Decision). The Bell Appeal Decision raises issues relating to the integrity of transactions with companies facing insolvency, which may create serious liability issues for company directors and lenders alike.  

After last year’s significant reforms to Australia’s insolvency framework, the Government has demonstrated a further commitment to simplifying and streamlining insolvency law to allow viable businesses that encounter economic challenges to restructure and continue trading.

This commitment is demonstrated by the Government continuing to examine ways to improve Australia's insolvency laws, including consulting on options to:

With COVID-19 causing ever increasing financial uncertainty around the globe, we thought it an apt time to provide you with a summary of the various corporate insolvency procedures in the UK applicable to companies facing financial difficulties. Taking each in turn, we will discuss administration, administrative receivership, company voluntary arrangements, schemes of arrangement and liquidation. We will also touch briefly on directors’ duties, rules relating to asset distribution on insolvency and transactions that may be set aside on insolvency or ‘reviewable’ transactions.

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]

一、嵌套的本质：收益权的收益权

嵌套，根据资管新规第二十二条和第二十七条的表述，是指甲资管产品投资乙资管产品的份额。即通过一项资产所设立的产品成为了另外一个产品投资的对象，形成了产品之中还包含产品的现象。

资产端的嵌套的本质上是以收益权为中心的权利虚化与重叠。试看下述两例：

图一

（2016）最高法民终215号案（下称“215号案”，见图一）中，定向资管计划从某投资公司受让了私募债券的收益权，而某银行又从定向资管计划受让了该资管计划的收益权，即“私募债券收益权的收益权”。其中，“私募债券收益权”是在“私募债券”这一概念中分离和抽象出来的虚化标的，“私募债券收益权的收益权”则是在“私募债券收益权”基础上进一步抽象出来的虚化标的，构成 “二重虚化的合同标的”。该案中的多层嵌套结构，如我们之前在《“收益权”创制问题的旧题新解》中分析，本质上就是以高度重合的标的进行的叠加式融资交易。

图二

The Queensland Court of Appeal has upheld an appeal by the liquidators of Linc Energy Limited (In Liquidation) (“Linc”) and given full effect to their disclaimer of contaminated mining property and onerous obligations the subject of an environmental protection order (“EPO”) issued by the Queensland Department of Environment and Science (“DES”).[1]

Introduction

The decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down this week in Commissioner of Taxation v Australian Building Systems Pty Ltd (in liq) [2014] FCAFC 133 offers welcome certainty to administrators, receivers and liquidators in relation to their obligations with respect to post-appointment tax liabilities.

Significance

In light of the modern trend towards “pre-pack” arrangements as a legitimate restructuring solution, a recent judgment handed down in the Federal Court provides a timely reminder for insolvency practitioners that independence is paramount and liquidators can be removed upon the application of a creditor in circumstances where there is a perception of conflict.