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
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