新加坡公司法SEC9

新加坡公司法SEC9 Reading material 新加坡公司法—公司解散、揭开公司面纱 SECTION 9 WINDING UP 第九节 公司解散 16.9.1 Despite the best of efforts, an insolvent company may not be able to overcome its difficulties. In such circumstances, the company may be dissolved to enable its assets to be liquidated so that its creditors may be repaid part of what is owing to them. This process by which a company is dissolved is known as winding up or liquidation. A healthy company may also be wound up if its members no longer wish the business to continue. When a company is wound up, its assets or the proceeds thereto will be used to pay off creditors after which the balance, if any, is distributed pro rata amongst shareholders. 16.9.1 即使尽了最大努力，破产公司仍有可能无法摆脱困境。在这种情况下，公司存续便可以终 结以使公司债权人能够得到部分清偿。公司终结的过程被称为公司解散或清算。如果公司成员不愿再继 续经营，运行良好的公司也可以解散。公司解散时，公司的资产及收益应用于向债权人清偿，如果还有 余额， 则应按比例分配给公司股东。 Voluntary Winding Up 自愿解散 16.9.2 There are two forms of liquidation, namely voluntary winding up and compulsory winding up by the court. A voluntary winding up usually occurs where the company resolves to do so by a special resolution – see section 290(1)(b) of the Act. In a voluntary winding up, the directors of the company may make a statement pursuant to section 293(1) of the Act that the directors of the company are of the view that the company will be able to pay its debts in full within a period not exceeding 12 months after the commencement of the winding up. If the directors do so, the winding up will proceed as a members’ voluntary winding up. In such circumstances, the shareholders will appoint the liquidator – see section 294(1) of the Act. If the directors do not make such a statement, it will be a creditors’ voluntary winding up, in which case the directors must call a meeting of creditors in order to appoint the liquidator – see Re Sin Teck Hong Oil Mills Ltd [1950] MLJ 232. 16.9.2 公司解散的方式有两种，即司法解散和自愿解散。公司自愿解散通常在公司通过特别的解 散决议后发生 [参见公司法第290(1)(b)条]。在自愿解散的情况下，公司董事可以根据公司法第 239(1)条的规定 表 关于同志近三年现实表现材料材料类招标技术评分表图表与交易pdf视力表打印pdf用图表说话 pdf 示，他们认为公司可以在解散程序开始后不超过12个月的时间内清偿全部债务。 如果公司董事这样做，公司解散即为股东自愿解散。在这种情况下，公司股东可以任命清算人 [参见公 司法第294(1)条]。如果公司董事不作出上述表示，公司解散即为债权人自愿解散，公司董事必须召 集债权人会议以任命清算人 [参见Re Sin Teck Hong Oil Mills Ltd (1950) MLJ 232 一案]。 16.9.3 A members’ voluntary winding up may be converted into a creditors’ voluntary winding up if the liquidator appointed by the members forms the opinion that the company will not be able to pay its debts in full within the period stated in the declaration made under section 1 293(1) of the Act. The liquidator will then have to summon a meeting of creditors and lay before them a statement of the assets and liabilities of the company – see section 295(1) of the Act. The creditors may then, pursuant to section 295(2) of the Act, appoint some other person to be the liquidator for the purpose of the winding up of the company. 16.9.3 如果由公司成员任命的清算人认为， 公司将无法在公司董事根据公司法第293(1)条表 明的时间内清偿全部债务，股东自愿解散可以转变为债权人自愿解散。清算人则必须召集债权人会议并 向债权人发布公司资产与债务声明 [参见公司法第295(1)条]。公司债权人可以根据公司法第295 (2)条的规定，另行任命清算人以完成公司解散过程。 Winding Up by the Court 司法解散 16.9.4 A company may also be compulsorily wound up by an order of court. Under section 253(1) of the Act, a petition to the court to wind up the company may be presented by (i) the company itself; (ii) a creditor; (iii)a contributory, the personal representative of a deceased contributory or the Official Assignee of the estate of a bankrupt contributory; (iv)the liquidator of the company; (v) a judicial manager; (vi) various Ministers on specified grounds. 16.9.4 公司也可以基于法院的命令而解散。根据公司法第253(1)条的规定，下列单位或人员可 以向法院提出解散公司的请求: (1)公司本身; (2)公司债权人; (3)捐助人、已死亡之捐助人的个人代表、或者已破产之捐助人的法定资产受让人; (4)公司清算人; (5)司法接管者; (6)具有法定理由的内阁部长。 16.9.5 When such a petition is presented, the court pursuant to section 254(1) of the Act may order the winding up of the company in certain circumstances, the more important of which are the following: (i) the company has by special resolution resolved that it be wound up by the court; (ii) the company does not commence business within a year from its incorporation or suspends its business for a whole year; (iii) the company is unable to pay its debts; (iv) the directors have acted in the affairs of the company in their own interests rather than in the interests of the members as a whole; (v) the court is of opinion that it is just and equitable that the company be wound up; (vi) the company has carried on multi-level marketing or pyramid selling in contravention of any written law that prohibits such activities; 2 (vii) the company is being used for an unlawful purpose or for purposes prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order in Singapore or against national security or interest. 16.9.5 在上述请求提出后，法院可以根据公司法第254(1)条的规定，在某些情形下命令公司解 散。以下是一些较为重要的情形: (1)公司已通过特别决议，要求公司进行司法解散; (2)公司未能在成立后一年内开始营业，或者停止营业满一年; (3)公司无力清偿债务; (4)董事出于自身利益而非公司成员的整体利益处理公司事务; (5)法院认为，解散公司是正当且合理的; (6)公司进行了成文法所禁止的多层或塔式销售行为; (7)公司被用于实现非法目的，或其目的将损害新加坡的公共安全、公共利益或公共秩序，或者将损 害新加坡的国家安全或国家利益。 16.9.6 Of the above circumstances, by far the ground most relied upon is that the company is unable to pay its debts. Section 254(2)(a) of the Act provides that a company shall be deemed unable to pay its debts if a creditor has served on the company a statutory demand for a sum exceeding S$10,000 and the company has, for 3 weeks thereafter, neglected to pay the sum or to secure or compound it to the reasonable satisfaction of the creditor. A company shall also be presumed unable to pay its debts if execution or other process issued on a judgment or order of any court in favour of a creditor of the company is returned unsatisfied in whole or in part – see section 254(2)(b) of the Act. It is also open to creditors of a company to substantively prove to the satisfaction of the court that the company is unable to pay its debts and, in such cases, the court can take into account the contingent and prospective liabilities of the company – see section 254(2)(c) of the Act. 16.9.6 在以上列举的情形中， 最为常见的是公司无力清偿债务。公司法第254(2)(a)条规定， 如果公司债权人向公司提出了超过10，000新元的清偿请求，公司未能在其后3星期内进行清偿、提 供担保、或提出让债权人满意的部分清偿 计划 项目进度计划表范例计划下载计划下载计划下载课程教学计划下载 ，公司便可视为无力清偿债务。如果对债权人有利的法院 判决或命令全部或部分未能得到执行，公司也可视为无力清偿债务。公司债权人也可向法院提出其它实 体意义的证据，以使法院相信公司已无力清偿债务，此时法院可以考虑公司可能要承担的债务和责任 [参见公司法第254(2)(c)条] Effect of Commencement of Winding Up 公司解散程序开始的效力 16.9.7 When winding up commences, the company moves into a different phase, one that is not concerned with the business as a going concern but with the winding down of the enterprise. At the same time, the interests of creditors become more important as creditors have priority over members to the residual assets of the company. As such, a number of consequences arise, some of which will be summarized here. First, though, it is necessary to determine when winding up commences as many of the consequences begin from the date of the commencement of winding up. In the case of a voluntary winding up, the winding up is generally deemed to have commenced at the time of the passing of the resolution for voluntary 3 winding up. However, where a provisional liquidator has been appointed before any such resolution was passed, a voluntary winding up commences at the time when the directors of the company filed the declaration under section 291(1) of the Act of the company’s inability to continue its business by reason of its liabilities – see section 291(6) of the Act. 16.9.7 解散程序开始后，公司便进入了一个不同的阶段，人们关心的不再是公司的营业而是要将 公司关闭。同时， 债权人的利益变得更为重要，因为债权人与公司成员相比，对公司的剩余资产享有 优先权利。当然，首先要确定解散程序开始的时间，因为其决定各种法律后果是否已经产生。在自愿解 散中，解散程序是从自愿解散决议通过时开始的。但如果在解散决议通过前已经任命了临时清算人，解 散程序开始的时间即为公司董事根据公司法第291(1)条发布声明表示公司因负债而无法继续经营的 时间 [参见公司法第291(6)条]。 16.9.8 Under section 255(1) of the Act, where a resolution for voluntary winding up has been passed, but the company is subsequently wound up by the court, the winding up is still regarded as having commenced from the time of the passing of the resolution. Section 255(2) of the Act provides that in all other cases where the company is wound up by the court, the winding up is deemed to have commenced at the time of the presentation of the petition for the winding up. 16.9.8 根据公司法第255(1)条的规定，如果公司通过自愿解散决议后，法院又下令解散该公司， 其解散程序开始的时间仍为决议通过的时间。公司法第255(2)条规定， 在任何其它司法解散的情形， 解散申请提交的时间即为公司解散程序开始的时间。 16.9.9 In a voluntary winding up (whether members’ or creditors’), section 292(1) of the Act provides that the company shall, from the commencement of the winding up cease to carry on its business, except so far as in the opinion of the liquidator is required for the beneficial winding up thereof. Where the company is wound up by the court, the liquidator may under section 272(1) of the Act carry on the business of the company for 4 weeks after the date of the winding up order. Thereafter, the liquidator must obtain the consent of the court or the committee of inspection to continue with the business of the company. On the appointment of a liquidator in a voluntary winding up, the powers of the directors generally cease – see sections 294(2) and 297(4) of the Act. This is also the case with a winding up by the court. 16.9.9 公司法第292(1)条规定，在自愿解散中(股东自愿解散或债权人自愿解散)，公司应在 解散程序开始后停止营业， 除非清算人认为某些营业活动是公司解散所必需的。在司法解散中，清算 人可以根据公司法第272(1)条的规定，在解散命令做出后4个星期内继续营业。之后，清算人只有 在得到法院或监督委员会的同意后才能继续营业。在自愿解散中，一旦任命了清算人，公司董事的权力 便终止了 [参见公司法第294(2)及297(4)条]。在司法解散中也是如此。 16.9.10 Pursuant to section 259 of the Act, any disposition of the property of the company, any transfer of shares or alteration in the status of members made after the commencement of winding up by the court shall be void unless the court otherwise orders. There is no equivalent provision in the case of a voluntary winding up. Where judgment creditors have not completed execution against the company before the commencement of winding up (whether the winding up is by the court or voluntary), they may not retain the benefit of their execution as against 4 the liquidator – see section 334(1) of the Act. This is because in a liquidation the assets of the company should be distributed pro rata to all creditors of the company in the first instance. Similarly, after the commencement of winding up by the court or a creditors’ voluntary winding up, any attachment, sequestration, distress or execution put in force shall be void – see sections 260 and 299(1) of the Act. 16.9.10 根据公司法第259条的规定，除非法院另有命令，司法解散程序开始后，任何公司财产的 处分、公司股份的转让以及成员身份的变化都是无效的。对于自愿解散则没有类似的规定。如果在解散 程序(司法解散或自愿解散)开始后，获得法院判决的债权人仍未完成其对公司的执行程序，则该执行 程序不得再对抗清算人[参见公司法第334(1)条]。因为，在公司清算中，公司所有的财产应按债权 比例向全部债权人进行清偿。同样， 在司法解散或债权人自愿解散程序开始后，任何担保设定、扣押、 接管及执行行为都是无效的 [公司法第260及299(1)条]。 16.9.11 In the case of winding up by the court, at any time after the presentation of the petition and before a winding up order has been made, the company or any creditor or contributory may apply to the court to stay any proceedings pending against the company – see section 258 of the Act. When a winding up order has been made, no action may be started against the company or proceeded with except with the leave of the court – see section 262(3) of the Act. Similarly, in the case of voluntary winding up, section 299(2) of the Act states that, after the commencement of winding up, no action shall be commenced or proceeded with against the company except by leave of the court. 16.9.11 司法解散中，在解散请求提出后解散命令做出前的任何时间，公司、债权人或捐助人都可 以请求法院中止任何针对公司的法律程序 [参见公司法第258条]。在解散命令做出后，除非得到法院 的许可，不得开始或继续任何针对公司的诉讼 [参见公司法第262条]。同样， 公司法第299(2)条 也规定，在自愿解散中，除非得到法院的许可，否则不得开始或继续任何针对公司的诉讼。 Recovery of Company?s Property 公司财产的收回 16.9.12 In a winding up, one of the principal roles of the liquidator is to get in the company’s property so that it can be realized and the proceeds distributed to creditors with any balance going to the members. In most cases, this is a straightforward process. However, there may be circumstances where the company’s property has been improperly transferred to third parties and the liquidator must attempt to recover such property. Two common instances involve undue preferences and transactions at an undervalue. 16.9.12 公司解散过程中， 清算人的主要职责之一便是收回公司的财产，将其变现以向债权人进行 清偿，并将剩余财产分配给公司成员。在大多数情况下，这只是一个很简单的过程。 但在有些情况下， 公司财产可能被不正当地转让给第三人，清算人则必须将其追回。两种普遍的情形是不当优待及低价交 易。 16.9.13 Section 329 of the Act prohibits undue preferences and transactions at an undervalue by reference to various provisions in the Bankruptcy Act (Cap. 20, 2000 Rev Ed). Generally speaking, a transfer of property amounts to an undue preference under section 99(3) of the Bankruptcy Act if it was made to a creditor of the company and puts the creditor in a 5 better position than he would otherwise have been in the winding up of the company. In addition, the company must have been influenced, in deciding to give the preference, by a desire to produce the effect of placing that person in such a better position – see section 99(4) of the Bankruptcy Act – and the transfer took place at the relevant time. This means that the transaction must have taken place within two years of the presentation of the petition or the commencement of winding up where the person said to have been preferred is an associate (e.g. a person in control of a company is an associate of the company) and in other cases within six months of the same date – see section 100 of the Bankruptcy Act. Where the liquidator has established that an act constitutes an undue preference, the court may avoid the transaction and allow the liquidator to recover the property transferred. 16.9.13 公司法第329条禁止不当优待及低价交易，并提及《破产法 (Cap.20, 2000 Rev Ed)》 中的若干条款。一般来说，根据破产法第99(3)条的规定，如果与公司债权人之间的财产交易使该债 权人的地位好于其在公司解散过程中应有的地位，该交易即构成不当优待。另外，一项交易要构成不当 优待，公司还必须是受到某种影响，并期望通过某种优待使该交易对象处于更好的地位 [参见破产法第 99(4)条]，而交易也应发生特定的时间。如果交易对象是公司关联人员(如公司控制者即为公司关 联人员)，则相关交易应发生在解散申请提出或解散程序开始之日前2年之内，对其他人员则应在6个 月之内 [参见破产法第100条]。如果清算人认为某一交易构成不当优待，法院可以撤销该交易，并允 许清算人追回交易财产。 16.9.14 A transaction entered into by a company with a third party at an undervalue may also be set aside by the court. Such a transaction arises where: (i) the company makes a gift to that person or otherwise enters into a transaction with that person on terms that provide for the company to receive no consideration; or (ii) the company enters into a transaction with that person for a consideration the value of which, in money or money’s worth, is significantly less than the value, in money or money’s worth, of the consideration provided by the company. 16.9.15 Furthermore, the transaction must have occurred within five years ending the day of the presentation of the petition or the commencement of winding up – see section 100(1) of the Bankruptcy Act. In addition, it must also be shown that, at the time the transaction took place, the company was insolvent or became insolvent as a consequence of the transaction – see section 100(2) of the Bankruptcy Act. 16.9.14 如果公司与第三人之间的交易构成低价交易，法院也可将其撤销。下列情形构成低价交易: (1)公司对第三人进行赠与， 或与第三人进行公司不能获取对价的交易; (2)公司与第三人进行交易，但公司获得的对价之金额或现金价值明显低于公司提供的对价。 另外，该交易必须发生在解散申请提出或者解散程序开始之日前的5年之内 [参见破产法第100(2)]。 另外，在交易发生时，公司应已经无力偿债，或者该交易使公司无力偿 债。后一条件也是不当优待的构成要件。 „Lifting the Veil? of Incorporation “揭开公司的面纱” 6 16.2.6 While an incorporated company has a personality separate from that of its members, there are circumstances when the courts will ignore such separate personality and treat the company and its members (or officers) as one for limited purposes. Thus, for example, there may be circumstances when the courts will hold the members of a company liable for debts incurred by the company. When the courts do so, it is said that the veil of incorporation is lifted or pierced. Generally, the cases of veil lifting fall into two categories: by statute and at common law. 16.2.6 尽管公司具有独立于其成员之外的身份，在某些情况下，法院为了特定的目的可能会无视 公司的独立身份，而将公司及其成员(或管理者)视为同一个主体。例如，在有些情况下，法院会责令 公司的成员来承担公司的债务。如果法院这样做，我们便可以说公司的面纱被揭开或刺穿。一般来说， 揭开公司面纱的案件有两类，分别由成文法和普通法规制。 Statutory Exceptions to the Separate Personality Doctrine 独立身份原则在制定法上的例外 16.2.7 It is open to Parliament to limit the effects of incorporation by a suitably worded statutory provision. One of the more important statutory limitations on the separate personality doctrine arises under sections 339(3) and 340(2) of the Act. The combined effect of those provisions is that, where debts are contracted without any reasonable or probable expectation that the company would be able to pay the debts, any officer of the company who was a party to the contracting of such debts is guilty of an offence and may, after conviction, be made personally liable by the court for the payment of the whole or any part of such debts. 16.2.7 国会有权制定适当的成文法来限制公司法人资格的效力范围。对独立身份原则较为重要的 限制之一规定在公司法第339(3)条和340(2)条中。根据该两条的规定，当公司订约并承担债务 时，如果不能合理地预期公司将具有偿债能力，该公司的任何管理者都将被视为行为违法，在违法行为 得到法院认定后其个人便可能要对上述债务的全部或部分承担责任。 16.2.8 Another important exception is found in section 340(1) of the Act. Where it appears in the course of the winding up of a company that any business of the company has been carried on with intent to defraud creditors of the company or creditors of any other person or for any fraudulent purpose, the court may declare that any person who was knowingly a party to the carrying on of the business in such a manner shall be personally liable for all or any of the debts or liabilities of the company as the court may direct. 16.2.8 另一重要的例外出现在公司法第340 (1)条。在公司解散过程中，对公司事务的处理如果 是为了欺骗公司债权人或任何其他人的债权人，或者出于任何其他的欺诈目的，法院可以责令任何参与 此类行为知情者，对公司的债务及责任承担其中的全部或者一部分。 16.2.9 A third important exception arises where dividends are paid even though there are no available profits out of which to pay such dividends – see section 403(2)(b) of the Act. Since dividends may only be paid where there are profits so as not to unduly prejudice creditors of the company, a director or manager of a company who wilfully pays or permits the payment of a dividend in the absence of profits will be liable to the creditors of the company for the amount 7 of the debts due to them to the extent by which the dividends exceed the available profits. 16.2.9 第三个重要的例外出现在以下情形中:即公司在缺乏可资分红的利润时进行了分红 [参见公 司法第403(2)(b)条]。公司分红只能在公司有足够的利润且不会不正当地损害公司债权人利益时才 能进行。如果公司的董事或经理在缺乏足够利润时，蓄意分配红利或许可分配红利，则应在分红超过可 分配利润的范围之内对公司债权人承担责任。 Common Law Exceptions to the Separate Personality Doctrine 身份独立原则在普通法上的例外 16.2.10 Persons incorporate companies for various reasons but, undoubtedly, one of the reasons is to insulate themselves from personal liability should the business fail. Accordingly, the mere fact that members or officers of a company utilize the corporate vehicle to shield themselves from personal liability is no -reason to disregard the company’s separate personality – see Adams v Cape Industries plc [1990] 1 Ch 433. However, the position is different where the members or officers of a company abuse the corporate form for improper means. 16.2.10 人们设立公司往往出于多种目的，其中之一无疑是避免在经营失败时承担个人责任。因此， 并不能仅仅因为公司成员或管理者利用公司 制度 关于办公室下班关闭电源制度矿山事故隐患举报和奖励制度制度下载人事管理制度doc盘点制度下载 来避免个人责任便否定公司的独立身份 [参见Adams v Cape Industries plc (1990) 1 Ch 433.一案]。但如果公司成员或管理者为了不正当的目的而滥用 公司形式，则又另当别论。 16.2.11 Thus, if an individual already has existing legal obligations, but attempts to use the corporate vehicle to evade such obligations, the courts will ignore the company’s separate personality. For example, it has been held that a person who has agreed to sell a house cannot avoid his contractual obligations by transferring the house to a company. Both he and the company were ordered to specifically perform the contract even though the company was not a party to the contract – see Jones v Lipman [1962] 1 WLR 832. 16.2.11 如果个人已经负有法律义务，却企图利用公司制度来逃避此义务，法院将无视公司的独立 身份。例如，法院曾判决认为，如果某人已经同意出售房屋，则不能通过将房屋转让给公司来逃避其合 同义务。个人和公司都被判令继续履行 合同 劳动合同范本免费下载装修合同范本免费下载租赁合同免费下载房屋买卖合同下载劳务合同范本下载 义务，尽管公司本身并非合同的当事人。[参见Jones v Lipman (1962) 1 WLR 832一案] 16.2.12 Similarly, if a company is used to perpetrate a fraudulent act, the courts will treat the company and those behind it as one and the same. Thus, if a company has been incorporated to defraud innocent investors, the court may hold the promoter of the company liable even though the promoter and company are separate persons – see Re Darby [1911] 1 KB 95. 16.2.12 同样，如果公司被用来进行欺诈行为，法院则会将公司及隐身背后的人视为同一主体。因 此，如果公司的设立是为了欺骗不知情的投资者，法院将责令公司发起人承担责任，尽管发起人和公司 具有各自独立的身份。 8 9