浅析新形势下上市公司并购重组方向与路径——以上市公司在子公司融资后实施并购重组之案例为视角
引言
2024年3月15日，中国证券监督管理委员会（以下简称“证监会”）发布《关于加强上市公司监管的意见（试行）》，明确“支持上市公司通过并购重组提升投资价值”，鼓励“上市公司综合运用各类工具提升对长期投资的吸引力，积极吸引长期机构投资者”，并提出“多措并举活跃并购重组市场，鼓励上市公司综合运用股份、现金、定向可转债等工具实施并购重组、注入优质资产”。
2024年4月12日，国务院发布《关于加强监管防范风险推动资本市场高质量发展的若干意见》，原则性提出“严把发行上市准入关”“严格上市公司持续监管”“大力推动中长期资金入市，持续壮大长期投资力量”等指导意见，进一步提高IPO标准，严格再融资审核把关，鼓励上市公司聚焦主业，综合运用并购重组、股权激励等方式提高发展质量，倡导长期资金入市，鼓励长期资金投资。
In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma LP, in a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize bankruptcy courts to confirm a Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan that discharges creditors’ claims against third parties without the consent of the affected claimants. The decision rejects the bankruptcy plan of Purdue Pharma, which had released members of the Sackler family from liability for their role in the opioid crisis. Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority decision. Justice Kavanaugh dissented, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kagan and Sotomayor.
Introduction
What happens when a shady businessman transfers $1 million from one floundering car dealership to another via the bank account of an innocent immigrant? Will the first dealership’s future chapter 7 trustee be allowed to recover from the naïve newcomer as the “initial transferee” of a fraudulent transfer as per the strict letter of the law? Or will our brave courts of equity exercise their powers to prevent a most grave injustice?
A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.
A foreign (non-U.S.) company can be dragged unwillingly into a U.S. bankruptcy case if the bankruptcy court has “personal jurisdiction” over the company.
The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.
There is a common misconception that lender liability is a thing of the past. However, a recent decision provides a warning to lenders that they can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a debtor’s business affairs.
There is a common misconception that lender liability is a thing of the past. However, a recent decision provides a warning to lenders that they can be held liable and face substantial damages if they exercise excessive control over a debtor’s business affairs.
In an opinion that mostly flew under the radar in 2021, Judge Christopher Sontchi from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “Court”) found investment firm Yucaipa American Alliance Fund I, L.P. and Yucaipa American Alliance (Parallel) Fund I, L.P.