In the recent decision in N.Chanthiran a/l Nagappan v Kao Che Jen [2023] 5 MLRA 247, the Federal Court had the occasion to put to rest, the question of whether leave of court is required for the commencement of proceedings against a court appointed liquidator. In this regard, the Federal Court clarified that leave of court is indeed required.
Brief Facts
The Government of Hong Kong continues its push towards favouring digitisation over using hardcopy documents. The new changes to local bankruptcy laws allows: (1) electronic service of statutory demands; (2) using electronic bundles and skeletons for winding-up and bankruptcy applications; and (3) allowing electronic submission of documents to the Official Receiver.
Electronic service of statutory demands: A game changer for creditors and debtors
This article is a part one of two series that explores the key issues we have recently seen and the case law arising in Misfeasance and Wrongful Trading claims.
Introduction
What is Wrongful Trading?
There are certain circumstances where liquidators can be held personally liable for costs orders made in proceedings taken by them.
Under the so called “Ballyrider Principles[1]”:
To prevent "trafficking in corporate shells," the Bankruptcy Code prohibits any discharge of corporate or partnership debts if the debtor is not an "individual" and, in a chapter 11 case, if the debtor proposes a liquidating chapter 11 plan contemplating the cessation of the debtor's business following confirmation.
Insolvency and Asset Recovery partner Tim Symes appeared on Sky News’ Business Live with Ian King as the latest government figures revealed that company and individual insolvencies in England and Wales remain close to an all time high.
In this week’s TGIF, we consider Jahani, in the matter of Ralan Property Services Pty Ltd (receivers and managers appointed) (in liq) [2023] FCA 738, a Federal Court decision approving the liquidators’ entry into funding agreements.
Key takeaways
In certain circumstances the official liquidator of a Cayman company may be able to take action to recover assets which have been transferred in the run up to the company’s insolvency. It is important for those concerned with the affairs of a Cayman company in the twilight of insolvency to be aware of the statutory powers available to the official liquidator and the Grand Court in the Cayman Islands.
Summary
Subchapter V eligibility requires a debtor to be “engaged in” commercial/business activities.
Case Law Consensus
Case law consensus is that such activities must exist on the petition filing date. That means a debtor cannot utilize Subchapter V when:
- business assets are fully-liquidated;
- unpaid debts are the only remnant of the failed business; and
- prospects for resuming such activities are nil.
So . . . here’s the question: Is that the right eligibility standard?
I say, “No.”
A Hypothetical
前言
众所周知，近年来全球经济形势在新冠疫情的阴影下日趋严峻，各行各业均受到了不同程度的负面影响。这种影响传导至PE/VC行业，就演变成“退出难” 问题。被投企业无法上市、业绩低迷、没人接盘……不得已，投资机构们开始打起了“清算”的主意，趁着投资本金还没亏完，能捞回来一点是一点。于是，机构们纷纷向被投企业主张“优先清算权”。关于优先清算权的法律效力，此前的主流观点曾认为《公司法》第186条第二款并不允许有限责任公司自由约定清算剩余财产分配事项，但随着《民法典》的立法进程以及颁布、实施，近年来的司法判例却大多认为《公司法》第186条第二款并非效力性强制性规定，因而支持优先清算权的法律效力。本文拟对几个典型判例进行介绍，以此给PE/VC行业人士提供有益参考。
如系争投资协议项下的“优先清算权”条款约定目标公司在分别支付法定的优于股东之间分配的款项后，部分股东优先于其他股东取得优先分配的，则该股 东内部对于分配顺序进行的约定并不违反《公司法》规定。
案例1
林宇与北京北科创新投资中心（有限合伙）股权转让纠纷案
【(2019)京03民终6335号】
基本事实