How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?
In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.
BACKGROUND
Ordinarily, a company entering liquidation is considered the commercial equivalent of “game over”, “checkmate”, “the end”, “K.O” or whatever other synonyms creditors can conjure up. This would be true for the most part because, at the end of the liquidation process, the company is usually deregistered and ceases to exist.
However, in some cases it is possible for the liquidator, a creditor or a “contributory” (member) of the company to apply to the Court for an order terminating the winding up. If made, this would return control of the company to the directors.
This week’s TGIF considers the case of In the matter of Specialist Australian Security Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2018] VSC 199 in which the Court considered the priority of administrators' right to an indemnity out of company property.
Background
The United Kingdom and Australia have recently implemented legislative changes to permit external administrators to assign or sell causes of action available to them.
Winding up a company – liquidation – applies in circumstances where a company is unable to pay its debts. In that situation, the company's directors, creditors or contributories can present a winding up petition. (This can be found in sections 122, 123 and 124 of the Insolvency Act 1986.)
A company is deemed unable to pay its debts if:
Introduction
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。
近年来，早期设立的一批外商投资企业的经营期限将近届满，同时根据原《中华人民共和国中外合资经营企业法》设立的中外合资企业的公司治理结构的弊端也日益凸显，而部分外商投资企业形成已久的公司僵局也始终不见破局之法，因此外商投资企业的解散和清算已经成为外国投资者所关注的热点话题。
《中华人民共和国外商投资法》（“《外商投资法》”）及其实施条例已经从今年1月1日开始实施，但新的法律、法规并未在内容上对外商投资企业解散和清算这一问题进行强调或注解。而随着“三资法”的废除，以公司形式设立的外商投资企业的解散和清算自然需要适用《中华人民共和国公司法》（“《公司法》”）第十章“公司解散和清算”的规定。而事实上，在《外商投资法》实施之前，外资企业在解散、清算方面已经适用了《公司法》的相关规定，只是在操作流程上较内资企业有所不同。
然而《公司法》对于解散清算的规定过于宽泛，而最高院有关企业解散清算的司法解释在实操层面又存在诸多难点和不确定性，导致外国投资者在寻求以解散清算方式撤离时面临重重困境。笔者拟通过本文对于外商投资企业解散和非破产清算一般路径以及可能面对的困难进行简要分析，从而希望对投资者在设立外商投资企业并签订相应股东协议时有所参考和提示。
In a pair of recent contrasting judgments, Re Agritrade Resources Ltd [2020] HKCFI 1967 and Re Rare Earth Magnesium Technology Group Holdings Ltd [2020] HKCFI 2260, the Hong Kong Court has once again confirmed its pragmatic approach towards applications by foreign liquidators and provisional liquidators for recognition and assistance in Hong Kong. The judgments emphasize the importance of adhering to the standard forms of order adopted by the Hong Kong courts in respect of such applications, and the need for any departure from the standard form to be fully justified.