过去三年中，受新冠疫情影响，大量企业面临无法清偿到期债务、资不抵债或者明显缺乏清偿能力的困境，法院受理破产清算案件的数量直线上升。最近，笔者也作为破产管理人的一员参与了一起有限合伙企业的破产清算案件，引发了笔者对于有限合伙企业及其普通合伙人共同承担合伙企业债务过程中破产的先后顺序的思考。本篇文章仅浅论普通合伙人因承担有限合伙企业对外债务的连带责任而被申请破产的情形，其因自身债务而进入破产清算程序的情况暂且不论。
- 案情简介
公司A为有限合伙企业B的唯一普通合伙人，现有B的债权人C要求A对B的对外债务承担连带责任，但A无力偿还，故C向法院申请对A进行破产清算，法院裁定受理并指定笔者所在单位作为A的破产管理人，而笔者在履行管理人职务的过程中，发现C并没有同步申请B破产，且B对外存在或有应收账款，如能悉数收回，且足以偿还对C的债务，则A可以免于被申请破产清算。此外，如A被宣告破产，则B也须及时推选或委任新的普通合伙人，否则B将因仅剩有限合伙人而陷入需要解散的境地。
在此情形下，C仅向法院申请对A进行破产清算是否合理引起了笔者的疑问。
The Grand Court of the Cayman Islands has recently ruled In the Matter of Formation Group (Cayman) Fund I, LP (Formation) 1 that it is possible to bring a just and equitable petition to wind-up an exempted limited partnership (ELP) in its own name, as opposed to that of the general partner (GP). This decision contradicts aspects of Justice Parker's judgment In The Matter of Padma Fund LP (Padma). 2 In this update, we consider these conflicting first instance decisions.
In The Matter of Padma Fund L.P. [FSD 201 of 2021] (RJP), the Cayman Grand Court held that the Cayman Court does not have jurisdiction to order the winding up of a Cayman exempted limited partnership (“ELP”) on the basis of a creditor’s petition for the winding up of the ELP. The Court ruled that the correct procedure for a creditor to follow is to commence proceedings against the general partner of the ELP for an unpaid debt.
Sometimes state legislatures react slowly to judge-made law and sometimes they move swiftly to correct perceived problems created by court rulings. Often, such rash legislative action is not well thought-out or properly drafted, making the solution worse than the fix. However, in Florida, within one legislative session, the Florida Legislature and governor considered and enacted a set of amendments to Florida's limited liability statute that hopefully will signal the business community that Florida knows how to pass laws that make sense.
Introduction
On Friday 1 April, the Court of Appeal handed down its much awaited written judgment in Westford Special Situations Fund Limited v Barfield Nominees et al. The decision has far reaching consequences, not only for BVI funds, but also for all types of BVI corporate vehicles. The case directly and indirectly dealt with four major issues:-
The Ministry of Economic Development has released a discussion document (together with a Q & A) which considers a range of potential changes to the fees and levies that fund the institutions that regulate New Zealand's corporate environment and financial markets.
Ruling description
In the judgment of August 18, 2015 (case no. II FSK 2510/13) the Supreme Administrative Court confirmed that a registered partnership is excluded from the scope of application of the Capital Duties Directive (69/335/ EEC). Therefore, Restructuring activities in such a company are subject to civil law transactions tax (PCC).
A recent decision of the Ontario Superior Court sheds light on when a commercial landlord is required to give consent to an assignment of lease or sublease.