On 17 October 2022, the Italian Supreme Court issued its judgment in case no. 30383, ruling on the liability actions brought by an insolvency practitioner against the statutory auditors. In particular, the Supreme Court ruled that an insolvency practitioner bringing a liability action against the statutory auditors must provide evidence of the existence of the damage, the relevant amount and the causal link existing between such damage and the unlawful conduct of the auditing body of the bankrupt company.
Yeni Gelişme
Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu’nun 3 Haziran 2022 tarih ve 2021/1 E., 2022/3 K. sayılı Kararı (“İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı“), 26 Kasım 2022’de Resmi Gazete’de yayımlandı. İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı uyarınca, aleyhine icra takibi başlatılan borçlu, takibe vekili aracılığıyla itiraz etse dahi, alacaklının açacağı itirazın iptali davasında dava dilekçesi vekile değil asıla (borçlunun kendisine) tebliğ edilmelidir.
Gelişme Ne Anlama Geliyor?
Poor Chicago.
Unlike the result for Chicago’s traffic ticket income in Fulton v. Chicago, the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to rescue Chicago in City of Chicago v. Mance (Case No. 22-268; Cert. denied, 11/21/2022).[Fn. 1]
Employment Tracker DEZEMBER 2022 DEZEMBER 2022 | EMPLOYMENT TRACKER Employment Tracker 2 Bleiben Sie mit uns auf dem Laufenden Mit unserem Employment Tracker blicken wir für Sie regelmäßig in die „Zukunft des Arbeitsrechts“! Jeweils zu Monatsbeginn stellen wir die wichtigsten für den Monat erwarteten Entscheidungen des Bundesarbeitsgerichts (BAG) und des Europäischen Gerichtshofs (EuGH) sowie sonstiger Gerichte vor. In der Ausgabe des jeweiligen Folgemonats berichten wir über die Ergebnisse.
简介
英国最高法院最近在BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana S.A. [2022] UKSC 25一案中颁下了重要裁决，其重要之处在于最高法院深入探讨了董事考虑债权人权益的责任，是只需出现真正的无力偿债风险便已触发，还是在相当可能或濒临无力偿债时才触发。
背景
本案的第二及第三答辩人为AWA公司（「该公司」）的董事。于2009年5月，他们安排该公司向该公司唯一股东（「第一答辩人」）派发1.35亿欧元的股息（「该股息」），以抵销第一答辩人结欠该公司的债务。该公司在支付该股息时，其资产负债表及现金流均处于具偿债能力的状况。然而，该公司有一项与污染相关而金额未定的长期或然负债，导致该公司产生未来可能无力偿债的真正风险。
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.
Part 1 – Celsius Bankruptcy