清算退出是私募基金全生命周期的“最后一公里”，直接关系投资者本金回收、基金财产安全处置及管理人合规责任闭环。若管理人怠于履行清算义务，不仅会触发监管处罚，更可能引发投资者集体仲裁/诉讼，严重损害市场声誉。

此前，本系列指南已覆盖基金募集、投资运作、投后管理等环节的合规要点；本篇作为第四篇，将聚焦清算退出环节的高频违规场景，拆解法律风险、明确监管依据、提供可落地的自查与整改方案，为管理人合规开展清算工作提供指引。

一、私募基金管理人怠于履行清算义务

1、典型案例简介

北京中扶私募基金有限责任公司（化名，以下称“中扶公司”）系在中国基金业协会登记的股权类私募基金管理人。2018年5月，中扶公司备案“中扶3号基金”（以下称“涉案基金”），募集规模人民币5,000万元，合伙协议明确约定基金存续期为5年，其中前4年为投资期，最后1年为退出期。涉案基金备案完成后完成对2家标的企业的股权投资，并约定如被投企业未在约定时间内完成上市或并购，被投企业实控人需按“本金+年化8%收益”的价格回购涉案基金持有的股权。

具有高风险高收益特征的私募基金自诞生以来吸引了无数投资者，它帮助很多投资者在短期内取得了可观的收益，但高收益必然伴随着高风险。在私募基金未取得理想的收益或甚至发生亏损后，部分投资者以基金管理人在募集、投资、投后管理、清算等过程中未适当履职为由，通过向监管部门投诉、提起诉讼或仲裁等方式要求基金管理人承担赔偿责任的案例比比皆是，对基金管理人的财务状况及后续展业造成了严重的不利影响。

本文结合清算过程中基金管理人可能出现的未适当履职及由此需承担的赔偿责任进行分析，以期引起基金管理人对基金清算工作的高度重视，避免自身及从业人员的赔偿责任。

一、延迟、怠于履行清算义务的赔偿责任

1. 未适当履职的情形

前言

私募基金“募投管退”等各阶段时常经历来自市场、政策及监管等种种不确定风险，这期间不仅基金管理人付出了大量的人力、物力以保障基金的正常运行和基金财产的安全，投资者也在默默期待取得理想的投资收益，而清算退出正是私募基金管理人与投资者迎来最终投资结果的阶段，清算完毕也意味着私募基金生命的终结，其重要性对于各方来说不言而喻。

一、私募基金清算的意义

私募基金的清算完毕代表着基金管理人、托管人及投资者等多方主体间法律关系的正式终结，对基金管理人、托管人而言，基金清算后将大幅减少其在投后管理中所投入的精力，且所应对的监管也会相应减少；对投资者而言，在基金清算后可以取回现有投资财产，保障自身资金的流动性；针对基金行业来说通过清算淘汰了部分“劣质”私募基金，彰显了优胜劣汰法则，可以使行业整体的发展越来越健康。

The High Court has reaffirmed the test to be applied in considering an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons grounded on a judgment.

The bankruptcy process in Ireland involves multiple steps and the debtor can seek to bring it to a halt at each step. Debtors often seek to rerun effectively the same arguments at each step, ignoring previous findings by the courts. One such step is an application to dismiss a bankruptcy summons.

The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.

This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.

Background

Irish company law provides that if a charge granted by a company is not registered in the Companies Registration Office (CRO) within 21 days of its creation, it is void against a liquidator and any creditor of the company. There is a duty imposed on a company which grants a charge to register the charge in the CRO but the creditor taking the charge can also do so.

Diamond Rock Developments Ltd (the Company) granted a mortgage over a property. That mortgage was registered in the Land Registry but was not registered in the CRO.

If you supply goods, the simplest step that you can take to reduce your exposure to a customer’s insolvency is to use effective retention of title (RoT).

However not all RoT clauses are effective and we see many RoT claims rejected in insolvency.

By default, once you sell goods on credit:

• the goods belong to the customer; and
• the customer owes you the purchase price.

This means that if an insolvency practitioner (IP) is appointed to the customer:

Corporate insolvency numbers continued to appear artificially low in 2022. The expectation is that they will rise once businesses need to deal with the aftermath of Government pandemic supports and, in particular, start to pay warehoused taxes.

The High Court recently rescinded an order adjudicating a debtor bankrupt in Ireland because the debtor failed to disclose material facts to the Court in his application for bankruptcy. In doing so, the Court established a duty of full disclosure that debtors must comply with when seeking to be adjudicated bankrupt in Ireland.

This decision will be welcomed by creditors where there is a concern that a debtor may seek to relocate from other EU member states to Ireland to avail of Ireland’s comparatively benign bankruptcy regime.

Background

The High Court has held that disclosure of debts and undertakings given to the Circuit Court in seeking a protective certificate for a personal insolvency arrangement can be relied on in other proceedings.

Background

The McLaughlins were engaged in a long running saga of litigation with Bank of Scotland plc (“BOS”) and, after a loan sale, Ennis Property Finance Limited (“Ennis”).

In 2016 they issued High Court proceedings against Ennis and Tom Kavanagh (the “Plenary Proceedings”).