Earth: how to ensure your customer’s insolvency leaves a sweet not a sour taste in the mouth and get paid in the event of insolvency

Absent a retention of title clause (or any other protective clause in a contract – see Part 1 in this series ), a creditor of an insolvent company has the following options.

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]

In a significant decision for the insurance industry, the Federal Court of Australia has granted leave to shareholders to bring a direct action against a company’s insurers where the (insured) company was in liquidation. This is one of the earliest cases to make use of the new Civil Liability (Third Party Claims Against Insurers) Act 2017 (NSW) (Third Party Claim Act), and provides some useful guidance for the industry on how this new legislation will be applied.

The decision impacts plaintiff lawyers, policyholders and insurers alike. Importantly:

In a recent landmark judgment dated 21 February 2016 the Dubai Court of First Instance decided in favour of a foreign shareholder, against a local Emirati, in a winding up petition. This is contrary to the long established protectionist trend employed by Courts in the United Arab Emirates. What is even more surprising is that the Court, in reaching its decision, has adopted a purposive approach, rather than simply applying the black letter of the law, as has traditionally been the case.

Case Details

In a decision handed down earlier today, in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liquidation) [2013] HCA 51,  the majority of the High Court upheld the Victorian Court of Appeal’s conclusion that the liquidators of an insolvent landlord can disclaim a lease, thereby extinguishing the tenant’s leasehold interest.

Over the past few months there have been a number of insurance portfolio transfers and a winding up of a general insurer.  Various judges of the Federal Court have considered aspects of the Insurance Act (Cth) 1973.

Portfolio transfers

There have been two scheme transfers of insurance portfolios from Australian branches of overseas insurers to Australian subsidiaries.  While objections to the transfers were raised, the Federal Court confirmed the schemes.

引言

近年来，伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化，融资租赁成为了争议高发领域，并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例，根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》，在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中，融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三，同比上升65.93%，争议标的金额则位居第二，仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中，对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]

本篇中，我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验，从程序及实体两个角度，分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称“《民法典》”）生效前的存量项目中，出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中，我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭，进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。

一、 “困局”：租赁物被承租人擅自处分，出租人的物权保障岌岌可危

Background

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.

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。在前几篇文章中，我们阐释了英国客户遭遇财务困难时会发生的情况以及破产执业者的权力。在“五行”系列最后一篇文章中，我们以“土”元素为主题，探讨获得破产客户付款的方法，正常完成交易中的供货和付款从而恢复供应商的业务平衡。

土：如何确保供应商在客户破产的情况下避免损失并使自己处于最佳境地，以及如何在此种情况下获得付款

如果没有所有权保留条款(或合同中的任何其他保护条款——见本系列篇目一，破产公司的债权人有如下选择。

1. 债权人应在破产程序中提交债权证明，并提供销售合同、交付凭证和未付款账单等证据。除了提交债权证明，在破产管理和清算程序中，债权人通常被禁止对公司提起诉讼。

2. 如果当前破产公司的董事订立低价交易以欺诈债权人(例如将资产置于债权人的控制范围之外)，受到该交易侵害的人可向法院申请许可对交易提出异议。

3. 如果公司的董事或高管作出任何关于公司对供应商有偿付能力的陈述，供应商依据该陈述继续与客户进行交易，而该董事知道或应当知道该陈述不实，在这种情况下，该董事个人可能须为这一不实陈述承担责任（又称欺诈侵权）。当然，这只有在董事拥有足够的个人资产来偿还债务的情况下才有用。