公司资本充足是指股东实缴的出资与公司的经营规模相适应，以确保公司有充足的资本应对经营风险、偿付到期债务，与之相匹配的法律规范就是公司资本充足制度。近年来，随着市场经济的发展，立法机关改变了法定资本制的立场，在司法实践中，公司资本充足制度也呈现出渐见宽松的趋势。

一、《公司法》多次修改公司资本制度，大幅放宽了资本管制

1993年12月颁行的《公司法》采取了严格的法定资本制度。

2005年10月修订的《公司法》在保持法定资本制度的同时，降低了设立公司的资本门槛，将严格的法定资本制度修改为法定资本分期缴纳的资本制度。

2013年12月修正的《公司法》大幅修改了公司资本制度，将实缴登记制改为认缴登记制（特殊行业除外），取消了注册资本的最低限额、分期认缴期限、首付出资比例及出资财产形式的限制等规定，改由股东在公司章程中自行约定，基本完成从法定资本制到授权资本制的转变。

2018年10月修改的《公司法》增加了允许上市公司回购本公司股份的情形，并实际上赋予上市公司回购股份的自主决定权（“上市公司为维护公司价值及股东权益所必需”），还简化了股份回购的决策程序，提高了公司持有本公司股份的数额上限，延长了公司持有所回购股份的期限。

In In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 2019 WL 1771786 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 23, 2019), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a litigation trustee’s motion to amend a complaint seeking to avoid alleged fraudulent transfers made to selling shareholders as part of a 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") of the Tribune Co. ("Tribune"), ruling that the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code continues to bar such claims notwithstanding the U.S. Supreme Court’s February 2018 decision in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting.

Amid the explosion of trading in claims against distressed and bankrupt entities, courts in recent years have issued numerous rulings of interest to both buyers and sellers.

(12) 信托计划中受托人对股权投资应当如何进行管理？

实践中，信托计划受托人取得股权主要基于两种情形，一是基于受托而取得股权，即委托人将自己合法持有的股权作为信托财产，转移至受托人管理和处分；二是基于投资而取得股权，即委托人先把自己合法持有的信托资金或其他财产转移至受托人，进而由受托人通过管理、运用该等受托财产，以增资、受让等方式投资取得股权并对该等股权进行管理和处分。

基于受托人取得股权的不同情形，受托人对股权投资的管理责任不完全相同。

如受托人系基于受托取得股权，受托人的股东身份更接近“名义股东”，其对投资股权的管理主要受限于信托合同约定的信托财产的运用及管理方式。

回购条款作为资管产品中常见的增信措施，资管新规对其有何影响？

资管新规之前，回购条款的效力得到法院普遍认可

回购条款本质上是一种逆向的、独立的交易行为，属于合同债权的范畴。其虽然具有一定的债权保障作用，但不构成债权担保的从属性，更不具有担保物权的优先受偿功能。因此，回购条款并非我国的法定担保形式。

资管新规之前，司法实践中，法院在考察当事人意思表示和内容的合法性基础上，一般会认可回购条款的合法有效性。

在“重庆国际信托股份有限公司与安徽三联实业发展有限公司等合同纠纷案”（〔2015〕渝高法民初字第00025号）中，法院认为，“《资产收益权转让及回购协议》系当事人的真实意思表示，不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定，合法有效。结合信托公司提供的营业执照和金融许可证上载明的内容，信托公司签订的上述合同不违反金融监管部门核准的经营范围；且本案合同所涉的借款资金来源并不影响借款合同本身的效力。”

On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated ruling resolving a long-standing circuit split over the scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s "safe harbor" provision exempting certain securities transaction payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers. In Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 BL 65569, No. 16-784 (U.S. Feb.

In U.S. Capital Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, No. 15-1509 (U.S. Mar. 5, 2018), the U.S. Supreme Court held that an appellate court should apply a deferential standard of review to a bankruptcy court's decision as to whether a creditor is a "nonstatutory" insider. Nonstatutory insiders are creditors who are not specifically designated as insiders under the Bankruptcy Code (such as officers, directors, and controlling shareholders), but who the bankruptcy court determines nonetheless have sufficient influence over a debtor to be deemed insiders.

The U.S. Supreme Court issued a highly anticipated ruling resolving a long-standing circuit split over the scope of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" provision exempting certain securities transaction payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers. In Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., the unanimous Court held that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not protect transfers made through a financial institution to a third party regardless of whether the financial institution had a beneficial interest in the transferred property.

In In re Ultra Petroleum Corp., 2017 BL 335015 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2017), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas ruled that certain private-placement noteholders were entitled to receive a "make-whole" premium in excess of $200 million under a chapter 11 plan that rendered the noteholders’ claims unimpaired.

In Short

The Situation: In In re MPM Silicones, L.L.C., secured noteholders argued that replacement notes distributed to them under a cram-down chapter 11 plan should bear market-rate interest rather than the lower formula rate proposed in the plan and that they were entitled to a make-whole premium.