INTRODUCTION

在争议解决过程中，债权人可能会面临一些公司法人债务人无法偿还债务的情形。在此情况下，债权人是否可以要求该公司股东一并承担责任呢？这还是要看要求股东承担责任有没有任何合同的依据或法律的依据。

从合同方面来看，这主要看双方之间的约定，如在合同签署时是否有一并要求股东提供担保或股东是否也是合同的一方，如无相关的约定，则只能看法律方面的依据了。

从法律方面来看，这主要看两个情形，一，如果该公司股东尚未出资完成的话，债权人是否可以要求该股东针对未出资部分承担责任；二，是否存在可以否认公司人格的情形。

一、要求未出资完成的股东承担部分责任

根据《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）》（下称“司法解释二”）第二十二条、《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（三）》（下称“司法解释三”）第十三条及第十四条，以及《企业破产法》第三十五条的规定，在以下几种情形下，债权人可以请求该股东在其未出资本息范围内对公司债务不能清偿的部分承担连带清偿责任或补充赔偿责任：

(1) 公司解散或破产清算时股东尚未缴纳出资（包括已到期的和未到期的）；

(2) 股东未履行或未全面履行出资义务；

(3) 股东抽逃出资的（针对抽逃出资本息部分）。

When an individual or company purchases property in England or Wales, the legal title will transfer once the purchaser is listed as the registered proprietor at the Land Registry. However, what happens when, pending the registration of the legal interest, the seller company (who is still the registered proprietor) is dissolved? This is a risk seldom contemplated when purchasing property, but can have important consequences for the title of the property.

In the course of dispute resolution, a creditor may be confronted with a situation where the corporate debtor is unable to repay its debts. In this case, can the creditor hold the shareholders of the company liable as well? This still depends on whether there is any contractual or legal basis for holding the shareholders liable.

The recent High Court judgment in Re CGL Realisations Limited (In Liquidation) in favour of Geoff Carton-Kelly as additional liquidator of failed electrical retailer Comet ordered the company’s former French parent, Darty, to pay over £100m to restore the preferential repayment of an intercompany loan owed to Darty in the run-up to Comet’s sale shortly before its insolvency. The additional liquidator was appointed in 2018 by the court specifically to investigate the circumstances of Comet’s sale in advance of its demise in 2012.

This week’s TGIF considers a recent decision in Re HRL Limited (in liq) & Anor [2022] VSC 693, in which the Court approved a success fee in addition to the liquidators’ remuneration calculated by the application of a time-based costing method.

Key takeaways

Part 1 – Celsius Bankruptcy

Introduction

The UK Supreme Court has recently delivered a landmark decision in the case of BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25. The decision is of great importance as the Supreme Court considered in detail whether the trigger for the directors’ duty to consider creditors’ interest is merely a real risk, as opposed to a probability of or close proximity to, insolvency.

Background

簡介

英國最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中頒下了重要裁決，其重要之處在於最高法院深入探討了董事考慮債權人權益的責任，是只需出現真正的無力償債風險便已觸發，還是在相當可能或瀕臨無力償債時才觸發。

背景

本案的第二及第三答辯人為AWA公司（「該公司」）的董事。於2009年5月，他們安排該公司向該公司唯一股東（「第一答辯人」）派發1.35億歐元的股息（「該股息」），以抵銷第一答辯人結欠該公司的債務。該公司在支付該股息時，其資產負債表及現金流均處於具償債能力的狀況。然而，該公司有一項與污染相關而金額未定的長期或然負債，導致該公司產生未來可能無力償債的真正風險。

Online claims-trading platform Xclaim Inc. came under scrutiny this past summer in the Madison Square Boys & Girls Club Inc. bankruptcy case pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. Since at least 2019, Xclaim has executed agreements with at least five notice and claims agent firms to synchronize their proofs of claim registers with Xclaim’s website where such claims are posted for sale.