In the current climate, both landlords and tenants could be forgiven for wondering what would happen if the other became a victim of the recession. For both parties, a rent deposit deed can provide some comfort. Such a deed would mean the landlord has immediate access to cold hard cash if the tenant fails to pay the rent, while a struggling tenant may get valuable breathing space before the landlord turns to other remedies.  

Back in August, we wrote a blog about adjudication and liquidation, following the judgment in the TCC case of Michael J. Lonsdale (Electrical) Limited v Bresco Electrical Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2018] EWHC 2043 (TCC) (Lonsdale).

Faced with thousands of complex potential claims from creditors, and a soon-to-expire letter of comfort, the liquidators of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) sought creative and efficient relief in the Federal Court of Australia to implement an expedited adjudication process to adjudicate and admit these claims without creditors having to individually establish causation for their loss or damage: Woodhouse (liquidator), in the matter of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 600.

合伙型基金退出时，合伙人之间可能因存在争议而无法自行组建清算组或虽然组成清算组却无法顺利完成清算。这便引发合伙型基金可否通过法院程序进行司法清算的问题。我们曾代理过一起非常罕见的合伙型基金司法清算的案件，开创上海市指定第三人担任基金清算组负责人的先例，案件在其他诸多方面都在上海地区乃至全国具有领先地位和创新意义。

所谓司法清算，亦即强制清算，是相对于企业自行清算而言，一般是指法院介入合伙型基金清算程序的制度，可以是法院组建清算组，也可能是法院监督清算程序，亦或当清算出现障碍时请求法院排除妨碍等。针对公司的强制清算，最高人民法院出台了《最高人民法院关于适用<中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定（二）》（以下简称“《公司法司法解释（二）》”）及《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》（以下简称“《公司强清纪要》”）。但有关合伙型基金的清算尚无较为全面和细致的立法体系，因此，合伙型基金通过司法方式进行强制清算的先例很少，且争议颇多。

优先清算权条款是境外风险投资项目的常见条款，随后逐渐在国内私募股权投资文件中采用。很多投资人关心，这一舶来品能否获得中国司法机关的认可，我们简要分析如下：

一、什么是优先清算权

优先清算权，是指公司清算时，部分股东优先于其他股东获得剩余财产分配的权利；或者，在约定的“视同清算事件”发生时，部分股东优先于其他股东从公司获得收益的权利，“视同清算事件”通常包括公司合并、被并购、出售控股股权、出售主要资产等事件。

在私募股权投资项目中，投资人为保障其自身权益采用优先清算权条款，目的是：在公司经营不善遭遇清算时，投资人可以优先拿回一些补偿；在投资人无法通过公司上市退出，发生公司被并购等“视同清算事件”发生时，其能够优先收回其投资成本和一定程度的投资回报，实现资产变现。该条款可谓投资人的“分钱利器”。

二、如何看待该条款效力

《公司法》第34条明确规定股东可以自由约定“利润分配”的比例。该条规定：“股东按照实缴的出资比例分取红利；公司新增资本时，股东有权优先按照实缴的出资比例认缴出资。但是，全体股东约定不按照出资比例分取红利或者不按照出资比例优先认缴出资的除外。”

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 the event of a contractual counterparty going into liquidation, whether or not a trade counterparty may claim set-off against debts owed to the insolvent counterparty can dramatically affect the commercial position of the account debtor. This was recently highlighted in the decision of Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (In Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers appointed) [2017] WASC (2 June 2017).

What does this mean for you?

General introduction to trust margin trading

On 19 April 2013, the Federal Court of Australia handed down its judgment in Eopply New Energy Technology Co Ltd v EP Solar Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 356. The Court enforced a foreign award against a company in liquidation, in the latest evidence of Australia’s pro-arbitration environment. 

Background

Foreign companies are frequently used to hold assets or other investments in Hong Kong. Some of these foreign companies are not registered under Part XI of the Companies Ordinance (“CO”) (“Unregistered Companies”). There are various reasons for not registering foreign companies in Hong Kong, including confidentiality and tax benefits. However, there may be some drawbacks to this approach.