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。

This week’s TGIF considers a recent case where the Supreme Court of Queensland rejected a director’s application to access an executory contract of sale entered into by receivers and managers on the basis it was not a ‘financial record’

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF looks at the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Donoghue v Russells (A Firm)[2021] FCA 798 in which Mr Donoghue appealed a decision to make a sequestration order which was premised on him ‘carrying on business in Australia' for the purpose of section 43(1)(b)(iii) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act).

Key Takeaways

This week’s TGIF considers an application to the Federal Court for the private hearing of a public examination where separate criminal proceedings were also on foot.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF looks at a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court, where a winding up application was adjourned to allow the debtor company to pursue restructuring under the recently introduced small business restructuring reforms.

Key takeaways

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers a recent Federal Court decision which validated dispositions of property made by a company after the winding up began.

WHAT HAPPENED?

On 8 May 2017, Bond J ordered that a coal exploration company (the Company) be wound up on just and equitable grounds following a shareholder oppression claim. So as to avoid the consequences of a liquidation, his Honour immediately stayed that order for a period of 7 days to enable the warring parties a final chance to resolve their differences.