Fulltext Search

过去数年,打包重组(Repackaging)结构盛行,中资金融机构寻求使用其作为便利进入市场的工具,并为客户提供创新的融资方案。

中国房地产行业是最广泛使用该结构的行业之一,该行业在2021年高开低走、大起大跌,并于最后一季急挫。市场预期房地产行业在2022年仍将困难重重。

在此背景下,我们察觉到安排人(Arranger)、中国房地产企业及投资者正在寻求对现有的打包重组交易进行结构调整(restructure)的机会(包括提前终止、展期、增加额外增信措施、置换等安排)。此外,我们还观察到,市场对与中国非房地产行业主体(如融资租赁公司、金融科技公司)相关的资产支持交易的兴趣有所增加。

我们将于本文探讨部分有关修订或提前终止打包重组交易的主要问题,并且概述我们在市场中观察到的典型案例和未来趋势。

温故知新:打包重组交易的基本结构

许多较为简单的打包重组交易的结构一般具有下列特点:

近年来,我国宏观经济增长放缓,国家调整产业和信贷政策,并逐渐加强金融监管,商业银行的资产质量压力有所增加,十亿甚至百亿级别的债务逾期或潜在违约浮出水面。这些巨无霸级别的潜在不良贷款风险,迫切要求商业银行审查并改善贷前贷后管理中的遗漏和问题,也对商业银行的危机处理能力提出了更高的挑战。

大敌当前,痛定思痛,当危机来临时,商业银行的管理层和执行层需要的是冷静的思考、周密的策划,以及必要时刻壮士断腕的决策力。从本团队近期参与处理的几项复杂的债务逾期及潜在违约案例来看,危机的表象多种多样,除了资金周转困难带来直接的偿付危机;有的则是债务人控制人挪用公司资金投入股市炒股,有的是公司实际控制人陷入刑事调查和指控,也有的则更为隐蔽,债务人关联主体在境外受到他国政府的调查等等。这些危机虽然不一定直接表现为到期不付,但可能已经导致债务人违反融资文件的陈述、承诺条款,甚至通过交叉违约触发了违约事件或潜在违约事件。

本文旨在梳理危机处理的思路,通盘策划全面追索资产的策略,为贷款管理工作层面制定一份简介易行的“工作方案”,以便为后续的债务重组和清偿争取宝贵的时间,避免弯路:

一、梳理融资文件

As the Chinese economy enters the “new normal”, the Chinese government has been adjusting its industrial and credit-related policies and strengthening regulation of Chinese financial institutions. A large number of non-performing loans (NPLs) as well as actual loan defaults have started to surface. The risks associated with rising levels of NPLs require Chinese banks to enhance their ex ante and ex post credit risk management practices.

With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations

The case

The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense

The case

With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers

The case

The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended

The case

With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver

The case

The Italian Government has been delegated to enact a comprehensive restatement of the whole set of rules of insolvency procedures, with specific innovative addresses regarding (to mention only the most important) the concordato preventivo procedure, venue rules, an out-of-court mediation alert process to timely address a risk of insolvency, new forms of security and a streamlined set of priorities among creditors

Introduction