中伦观点
在系列上篇中，我们梳理了地产项目债务重组相关政策，结合经验总结债务重组的原则、项目与项目公司尽职调查实务重点。在下篇中，我们着重梳理困境项目重组方案经验，并分享对行政赋能的一些思考，供读者参考。
房地产行业高速发展10余年，在“房住不炒”的宏观背景以及2020年8月“三道红线”政策后，因房地产行业的发展模式及市场发展规律、政策执行力度、国家宏观调控等多方面的原因，房地产市场从2021年9月开始经历行业“缩表”的阵痛，不少大型房地产企业先后出现债务风险，面临诸多的困难处境，继而影响资金方、施工方、材料设备供应方及购房业主等多方主体。房地产市场影响国民经济及民生多个方面，在行业困境下，政府亦在监管、维稳、施救等多方面遇到难题。表面上看，各方主体皆可按政策与法律处理，但实操中，商业诉求与法律的平衡，经济效果与社会效果、法律效果的协调，社会资源的调度与节约，仍需探索最佳路径。
本文仅就困境项目的成因、市场常见盘活方案等问题，从法律角度予以整理，请勿以此作为法律意见在实践中套用。
一、困境项目重组方案
房地产行业高速发展10余年，在“房住不炒”的宏观背景以及2020年8月“三道红线”政策后，因房地产行业的发展模式及市场发展规律、政策执行力度、国家宏观调控等多方面的原因，房地产市场从2021年9月开始经历行业“缩表”的阵痛，不少大型房地产企业先后出现债务风险，面临诸多的困难处境，继而影响资金方、施工方、材料设备供应方及购房业主等多方主体。房地产市场影响国民经济及民生多个方面，在行业困境下，政府亦在监管、维稳、施救等多方面遇到难题。表面上看，各方主体皆可按政策与法律处理，但实操中，商业诉求与法律的平衡，经济效果与社会效果、法律效果的协调，社会资源的调度与节约，仍需探索最佳路径。
单纯的法律手段难以解决问题的情形下，笔者认为：房地产困境的解决，最终需要落实到具体的房地产项目庭外重组与盘活。开展全行业性的政策拯救或对大型地产公司进行全面的庭外重组盘活，需假以时日并多方共同努力。因此，结合近一年多的地产项目重组盘活经验，笔者希望从政府管理、商业诉求、法律实践等方面，为各方在房地产项目困境中破局提供些建议，达到解决具体房地产项目的实际问题，使项目价值最大化，最大程度实现各方利益诉求，从一定程度上缓解目前房地产困境。
本文仅就困境项目的成因、市场常见盘活方案等问题，从法律角度予以整理，请勿以此作为法律意见在实践中套用。
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 Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.
What happened?
On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.
This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.
Background
Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.
The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.
This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.
What happened?
In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.
This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.
What happened?
How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?
In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.
BACKGROUND