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 Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following:
The Court of Appeal in 90 Nine Limited v Luxury Rentals NZ Limited [2019] NZCA 424 allowed an appeal from a creditor in respect of an application to liquidate the respondent over a failure to pay a statutory demand.
The High Court in Henderson v Walker [2019] NZHC 2184 found a liquidator, Mr Walker, liable for breach of confidence in relation to the distribution of part of Mr Henderson's private information, awarding $5,000 in damages. The liquidator was also found liable for invasion of privacy in relation to distributions made to the Official Assignee, although no separate damages were awarded.
The Insolvency and Company Court of England and Wales recently held in Sell Your Car With Us Ltd v Anil Sareen [2019] EWHC 2332 (Ch) that, when a debtor fails to comply with a statutory demand and has no arguable case to dispute a debt, a winding-up petition (initiation of liquidation proceedings) is appropriate, despite judges previously expressing distaste towards the use of a petition as a method of debt collection.