Since the decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in Re Independent [2016] NSWSC 106, there has been doubt about whether receivers and liquidators should apply the statutory priorities afforded to employee entitlements in sections 433, 561 and 556 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) when distributing the assets of companies who have conducted their businesses as trusts.
On 29 April 2016, the Australian Government Treasury released a proposal paper that, among other things, proposed reforms to introduce an ipso facto moratorium (Proposal). This reform was foreshadowed in as part of the Australian Government’s National Innovation and Science Agenda.
In the wake of the global financial crisis, Hong Kong’s key financial regulators, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA), the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) and the Insurance Authority (IA), have jointly issued a consultation paper (Paper) that outlines proposals for establishing a resolution regime for significant financial institutions (FIs) that are in crisis or likely to collapse.
Amaca Pty Ltd v McGrath & Anor as liquidators of HIH Underwriting and Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 90
引言：近期某集团破产清算案中，关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项，上海金融法院作出裁定，对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可，鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中，管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此，关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此，本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手，在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下，阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径，并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。
一、“维好协议”的性质分析
（一）何谓“维好协议”
As one element of a package of measures intended to assist UK businesses with coping with economic difficulties brought about by the coronavirus pandemic, the UK government will temporarily suspend wrongful trading laws. The proposal to temporarily suspend wrongful trading laws is set out in the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill (the ‘Bill’), which is currently going through the UK parliament’s legislative process and is expected to be passed into law imminently.
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