企业发生债务危机拟进行债务重组时，企业的客观情况，包括但不限于企业集团的构成、资产、负债、业务经营等等，是企业自身选定重组方向制定重组方案、政府机关判断企业有无救助价值、债权人判断重组方案是否可行、投资人研判企业有无投资价值及具体投资方向的基本依据，故全面、及时地尽职调查对危机企业极有必要。然而应当注意的是，基于债务重组为目的的尽职调查与传统的收并购、IPO、债权融资等业务所涉尽职调查在尽调的对象、内容、方法等方面存在区别，应基于尽职调查的目的有针对性地设计尽调方案，进而获取对使用人有价值的尽调结果。本文拟对债务重组场景下“尽职调查”的目的、分类、尽调的主要内容及方法、以及尽调中的注意事项进行分析论述。

一、庭外债务重组尽职调查目的概述

尽职调查的目的是指导如何设计尽调方案、采取何种尽调方法、如何进行尽调结果披露的基础。举例来说，在股权收购项目中，收购方需对目标企业进行尽职调查，其目的是了解企业是否具备投资价值、并尽可能的发现可能对投资人收益产生影响的潜在风险；在资产收购项目中，收购方需对收购标的进行尽职调查，其目的是了解资产的客观状态及法律状态，确定收购资产的客观现状、法律权属、法律瑕疵等；而在庭外债务重组中，尽职调查的主要目的是了解企业的客观现状，以便确定如何化解其债务危机问题。

目前庭外债务重组的表决程序尚没有明确的强制性规定，其实质是债权人和债务人之间的协商合意，在债务人与债权人“单对单”的重组场景下，由债务人和债权人协商重组条件、签署重组文件，相关重组文件可以发生对债务人和债权人的约束。但在大型企业整体债务重组中，涉及较多的债务重组主体和数量较多的债权人。在各债权人存在不同诉求的情况下，可能无法达到百分之百债权人同意方案、签署重组协议，故如何高效、快速地完成整体重组方案的表决，以及表决通过的重组方案对投弃权票甚至明确反对的债权人是否有约束力，是债务重组实践中债务人和债权人均会关心且经常面临的实际问题。

一、庭外债务重组方案表决的程序探讨

（一）重组方案的表决程序概述

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background

In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York recently analyzed whether a debtor may exempt from her bankruptcy estate a retirement account that was bequeathed to her upon the death of her parent. In In re Todd, 585 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y 2018), the court addressed an objection to a debtor’s claim of exemption in an inherited retirement account, and held that the property was not exempt under New York and federal law.

In Kaye v. Blue Bell Creameries (In re BFW Liquidation), 899 F.3d 1178 (11th Cir. 2018), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit found that a liability for an allegedly preferential transfer may be reduced by the amount of new value given, regardless of whether that new value has already been repaid by the debtor before its bankruptcy filing.

On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamar Archer & Cofrin LLP v. Appling,[1] resolving a circuit split on the issue of whether a debtor’s statement about a single asset constitutes “a statement respecting the debtor’s financial condition” for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2).