实践中，往往会出现在执行过程中，作为被执行人的公司注销的情形。注销是《公司法》规定的使公司实体灭失的一种方式，注销后，该实体将不再存在，依照相关程序法的规定，作为被执行人的公司灭失后，将依法终结诉讼。负债公司多以注销当幌子，进行逃避到期债务之实。在作为被执行人的公司注销，而公司账面仍有剩余财产的情况下，债权人应如何使自己的到期合法债权得到清偿?下面请看一则案例。
【案例】
李某、刘某、朱某原是北京XX有限公司员工。因公司无故拖欠工资，三人向北京市东城区劳动争议仲裁委员会提起仲裁，要求XX公司支付工资及补偿金。仲裁委于2008年8月1日裁决XX公司支付债权人双倍工资、加班费、补偿金，其中应当支付李某2.2余万元、支付刘某2.1余万元、支付朱某1.6余万元。
该裁决生效后，三债权人于2008年8月22日申请法院强制执行。在执行过程中发现XX公司已于2008年8月25日向工商部门申请注销，并提交了清算报告，三位股东正是清算组成员。清算报告中称没有未完结的债权债务关系。公司账面剩余财产为7.5万元，三位股东就出资额对该剩余财产进行了分配。工商部门遂于2008年9月20日核准了清算组注销XX公司的申请，导致法院无法强制执行。
很显然，在上述案例中，债权人可以要求三位股东承担清偿责任。理由如下：
An insolvency administrator has been sentenced to 11 years of imprisonment for obtaining RMB1.3 million in bribes. Huang Zhicong (“Huang”), former vice-president of Building Materials Corporation in Shaoguan City of Guangdong Province, was the insolvency administrator of Shaoguan New Sunlight Textile Enterprise Co., Ltd. (“New Sunlight”).
The Judicial Committee of the Supreme People’s Court has passed a notice regarding overdue fines on unpaid taxes of a bankrupt enterprise. This came into effect on 12 July 2012.
- Background
Company A is a foreign enterprise whose business is the production of certain specialist machinery. In China, only approved entities which are on a list compiled by the department in charge are permitted to manufacture such machinery. Company B, a Chinese enterprise, is one such entity. To enter the Chinese market, company A signed a joint venture agreement with company B in 2007. Each company agreed to contribute capital to establish a joint venture to manufacture such machinery.
Norwest Holdings Pte Ltd (in Liquidation) v Newport Mining Ltd [2011] SGCA 42
Throughout the global economic meltdown, the number of bankruptcy cases in China has risen considerably. To shed light on bankruptcy proceedings and stabilize the domestic economy, the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC issued Opinions on Several Issues Regarding the Proper Adjudication of Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases to Provide a Judicial Safeguard for Maintaining Order in the Market Economy on June 12, 2009. The Opinions direct courts at all levels to properly apply the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (EBL) to assist insolvent enterprises, maintain market order, and stabilize the economy.
Reasoning behind the changes
In the two years that the "new" bankruptcy regime – the Bankruptcy Act of September 2015 (Stečajni zakon; the "BA") – has been in place, the number of pre-bankruptcy procedures initiated in Croatia has plummeted to only 273, with 58 restructuring plans being accepted. By comparison, under the previous pre-bankruptcy regime from 2012 to 2015, 8,262 pre-bankruptcy procedures were initiated, with 2,224 restructuring plans being reached.
On 2 May 2018 the Croatian Constitutional Court ("Constitutional Court") upheld the Law on Extraordinary Administration Procedure for Companies of Systematic Importance for Croatia, better known as "Lex Agrokor".
On 14 March 2020, the Croatian Ministry of Justice issued recommendations to prevent the transmission of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) and control the pandemic ("Measures"). The Measures are applicable until 1 April 2020. The Measures advise temporary adjustments to legal requirements in civil, insolvency and criminal procedure law to avoid hardship that would otherwise arise as a result of the coronavirus crisis.
With the aim of further mitigating the negative effects of the crisis on companies and private individuals, the Measures advise the following:
INTRODUCTION
The use of trusts for asset protection purposes is well established and – in principle – not improper. However, recent history has seen increasing attempts by creditors to have transfers of assets unwound. A recent UK Supreme Court case saw the Court effectively achieve this by way of a resulting trust finding.1 This article considers the issue from a different angle: insolvency legislation.