简介
最近在Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch) 一案中，英国高等法院（「法院」）基于一个比较罕见的理由颁令将一家上市公司清盘——失去公司基础（loss of substratum），即公司放弃其主要宗旨和目的。
背景
Klimvest Plc（「该公司」）于2019年1月出售其业务及资产，其后其唯一重大资产为约800万英镑的现金储备。出售资产后，该公司的最大股东Klimt Invest SA（「第一答辩人」）要求该公司动用出售所得款项作出新投资，而非将在清盘中分派予股东。
Eric Duneau先生（「呈请人」）要求根据英国《1986年无力偿债法》第122(1)(g) 条颁令该公司清盘，认为由于该公司已失去其目的或基础，将该公司清盘属公正公平。第一答辩人反对呈请，辩称（其中包括）该公司并无失去其目的或基础，因为该公司在出售资产前实质上已成为一间控股投资公司，公司的目的仍可透过该投资实现。
失去公司基础的测试
An increasing body of English case law has recognised cryptocurrencies as a form of property giving rise to the possibility of insolvency clawback claims involving cryptoassets.
Recent developments
I have received a bankruptcy notice, what is it?
A bankruptcy notice is where a person or organisation (the creditor), is alleging by way of demand, that you (the debtor) owes them money. Effectively, the creditor is seeking to declare you bankrupt if you do not repay the debt or comply with the notice.
A bankruptcy notice is usually issued where a creditor has obtained a court judgement or where the judgement made against a debtor is $10,000 or more.
簡介
最近在Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch) 一案中，英國高等法院（「法院」）基於一個比較罕見的理由頒令將一家上市公司清盤——失去公司基礎（loss of substratum），即公司放棄其主要宗旨和目的。
背景
Klimvest Plc（「該公司」）於2019年1月出售其業務及資產，其後其唯一重大資產為約800萬英鎊的現金儲備。出售資產後，該公司的最大股東Klimt Invest SA（「第一答辯人」）要求該公司動用出售所得款項作出新投資，而非將在清盤中分派予股東。
Eric Duneau先生（「呈請人」）要求根據英國《1986年無力償債法》第122(1)(g) 條頒令該公司清盤，認為由於該公司已失去其目的或基礎，將該公司清盤屬公正公平。第一答辯人反對呈請，辯稱（其中包括）該公司並無失去其目的或基礎，因為該公司在出售資產前實質上已成為一間控股投資公司，公司的目的仍可透過該投資實現。
失去公司基礎的測試
Here are a couple long-standing and foundational policies for the entire bankruptcy system:
- Bankruptcy laws protect the honest but unfortunate debtor; and
- Discharge exceptions are to be strictly construed against the objecting creditor and liberally construed in favor of debtor.
So, for all my decades of practice under the Bankruptcy Code, this idea has held sway: an honest debtor is entitled to a bankruptcy discharge.
Introduction
In the recent case of Re Klimvest plc [2022] EWHC 596 (Ch), the English High Court (”Court”) ordered the winding up of a public company on a relatively uncommon ground - loss of substratum, i.e. – the abandonment of a company’s main object and purpose.
Background
Yesterday, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) published its long-awaited judgment in Heiploeg/FNV. The ECJ rules that a pre-pack under circumstances can fall within the exception as mentioned in Article 5 (1) Directive 2001/23.
Introduction to the pre-pack
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that the “no fair ground of doubt” standard established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Taggart v. Lorenzen, a case involving alleged violation of a Chapter 7 discharge order, governed civil contempt proceedings for violation of a confirmed reorganization plan under Chapter 11.
The South African economy has been significantly impacted by the Covid-19 pandemic. It is estimated that during the 2021 financial year alone, approximately four hundred companies were placed in business rescue. But what is business rescue and why is it relevant to small business owners and entrepreneurs in South Africa?