近年市场竞争及经营环境不确定性持续增加的情况下，不少企业有可能面临营运及财务困难，导致债务违约的情况有上升的趋势。如果债务人资不抵债，债权人有权利用破产清盘的程序接管债务人的资产并尽量实现回收最大化。根据香港破产管理署公布的统计数字，在2019年1月至10月期间，强制公司清盘案及破产案呈请的数字达到7,062宗。我们藉此介绍近期香港法院就破产清盘颁发的两个重要判决。
1. 仲裁协议的存在是否会影响破产清盘程序的开展？
香港上诉法院近期在But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873一案中，考虑了债权相关的合同中约定有仲裁条款管辖的情况下，债权人利用法院破产清盘程序的权利会否受限。由于很多的商业协议均载有仲裁条款，法院的判决对债权人的权利及可采取的救济手段有重要意义。
在该案中，上诉人（证券公司客户，即债务人）与被上诉人（证券公司，即债权人）签订的客户协议约定双方之间的争议以仲裁解决。由于上诉人没有偿还保证金账户的欠款，债权人在香港法院申请上诉人破产。上诉人以双方已经约定仲裁为其中一个理由，请求上诉法院撤销债权人发出的法定偿债书。
This article was first published in Digital Asset.
“Immutable” is a term that is frequently used when people talk about blockchain and the benefit of using this technology for record-keeping.
The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee (“the Committee”) has endorsed the passing of the Bankruptcy Amendment (Enterprise Incentives) Bill 2017 (“the Bill”) in its report dated 21 March 2018.[1]
The High Court this afternoon unanimously dismissed Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson's challenge to the constitutional validity of section 596A of the Corporations Act.
This means that a liquidator's power to publicly examine and compel the production of documents remains intact and removes any doubt about the powers of liquidators under section 596A of the Corporations Act.
Arguments made by Clive Palmer and Ian Ferguson
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