近几年，受技术红利、产品市场、资本市场政策等多方面因素的影响，一些具有中国元素的美国公司寻求在中国境内（“境内”）市场的融资，探寻落地境内进而实现境内IPO的路径，但是，基于中美法律、税务系统的差异，在论证重组路径的过程中经常会耗费大量时间和金钱成本，往往因创始人和股东的美籍身份在重组过程中面临巨大的美国税负而导致重组搁浅。本文结合我们的实操经验对美国公司重组落回境内涉及的相关要点问题进行分析。
一、架构拆除的必要性
根据我国《公司法》，上市公司是指股票在证券交易所上市交易的、在中国境内设立的股份有限公司。但是，对于境外主体在境内A股上市的突破体现在根据《关于开展创新企业境内发行股票或存托凭证试点若干意见的通知》规定红筹企业允许发行股票或存托凭证在境内上市，例如“H公司（证券代码：688***）”以红筹企业通过直接跨境发行股票的方式以及“J公司（证券代码：689***）”以红筹企业通过发行存托凭证（CDR）的方式在境内上市，但前述情形下对于拟上市公司“红筹企业”的行业、预计市值等方面要求较高，且“红筹企业”一般被认为是注册在境外，主要经营活动在境内的企业[1]。因此，对于主要业务运营在美国且融资平台注册在中国境外的主体目前仍难以在境内直接上市。
On October 17, 2022, Justice Andrea Masley of the NY Supreme Court issued a decision and order denying all but one of the motion to dismiss claims filed by Boardriders, Oaktree Capital (an equity holder, term lender, and “Sponsor” under the credit agreement), and an ad hoc group of lenders (the “Participating Lenders”) that participated in an “uptiering” transaction that included new money investments and roll-ups of existing term loan debt into new priming debt that would sit at the top of the company’s capital structure.
On October 14, 2022, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in Ultra Petroleum, granting favorable outcomes to “unimpaired” creditors that challenged the company’s plan of reorganization and argued for payment (i) of a ~$200 million make-whole and (ii) post-petition interest at the contractual rate, not the Federal Judgment Rate. At issue on appeal was the Chapter 11 plan proposed by the “massively solvent” debtors—Ultra Petroleum Corp. (HoldCo) and its affiliates, including subsidiary Ultra Resources, Inc.
On July 6, Delaware Bankruptcy Court Judge Craig T. Goldblatt issued a memorandum opinion in the bankruptcy cases of TPC Group, Inc., growing the corpus of recent court decisions tackling “uptiering” and other similar transactions that have been dubbed by some practitioners and investors as “creditor-on-creditor violence.” This topic has been a hot button issue for a few years, playing out in a number of high profile scenarios, from J.Crew and Travelport to Serta Simmons and TriMark, among others.
On August 26, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Bankruptcy Code does not require subordination agreements to be strictly enforced in order for a court to confirm a cramdown plan, so long as the plan does not discriminate unfairly.
On December 19, 2019, the Second Circuit held that appellants’ state law constructive fraudulent transfer claims were preempted by virtue of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbors that exempt transfers made in connection with a contract for the purchase, sale or loan of a security from being clawed back into the bankruptcy estate for
On January 14, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a decision resolving the question of whether a motion for relief from the automatic stay constitutes a discrete dispute within the bankruptcy that creates a basis for a final appealable ruling, or whether it simply is a controversy that is part of the broader Chapter 11 case, such that appeals would not need to be taken until the conclusion of the Chapter 11 case.
The oil and gas industry in the United States is highly dependent upon an intricate set of agreements that allow oil and gas to be gathered from privately owned land. Historically, the dedication language in oil and gas gathering agreements — through which the rights to the oil or gas in specified land are dedicated — was viewed as being a covenant that ran with the land. That view was put to the test during the wave of oil and gas exploration company bankruptcies that began in 2014.
On February 25, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a decision holding that a trustee is not barred by either the presumption against extraterritoriality or by international comity principles from recovering property from a foreign subsequent transferee that received the property from a foreign initial transferee.
On January 17, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a decision holding that “impairment” under a plan of reorganization does not arise even if a creditor is paid less than it would be entitled to under its contract, so long as the reduced recovery is due to the plan’s incorporation of the Bankruptcy Code’s disallowance provisions.