过去数年,打包重组(Repackaging)结构盛行,中资金融机构寻求使用其作为便利进入市场的工具,并为客户提供创新的融资方案。
中国房地产行业是最广泛使用该结构的行业之一,该行业在2021年高开低走、大起大跌,并于最后一季急挫。市场预期房地产行业在2022年仍将困难重重。
在此背景下,我们察觉到安排人(Arranger)、中国房地产企业及投资者正在寻求对现有的打包重组交易进行结构调整(restructure)的机会(包括提前终止、展期、增加额外增信措施、置换等安排)。此外,我们还观察到,市场对与中国非房地产行业主体(如融资租赁公司、金融科技公司)相关的资产支持交易的兴趣有所增加。
我们将于本文探讨部分有关修订或提前终止打包重组交易的主要问题,并且概述我们在市场中观察到的典型案例和未来趋势。
温故知新:打包重组交易的基本结构
许多较为简单的打包重组交易的结构一般具有下列特点:
第一部分:向香港特别行政区和中国内地客户介绍孤儿SPV打包重组交易
Part 1: Introduction to orphan SPV repackaging transactions for Hong Kong SAR and Mainland China clients
This article was written by Richard Mazzochi, Minny Siu, Angus Sip and Ryan Iskandar
Changes may be coming to the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions.[1] In 2012 the American Bankruptcy Institute established a Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 (the “ABI Commission”), composed of many well-respected restructuring practitioners, including two of the original drafters of the Bankruptcy Code, whose advice holds great weight in the restructuring community.
A bankruptcy judge in the Southern District of New York recently held that section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code does not prevent a debtor’s creditors from bringing state-law fraudulent conveyance actions that challenge a leveraged buyout of the debtor. Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.), No. 10-4609 (REG), --- B.R. ----, 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014).
TheLehman Brothers bankruptcy court has determined that the contractually specified methodology for conducting the liquidation of a swap agreement is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the bankruptcy, even if the selected methodology would be more favorable to the non-defaulting counterparty than the liquidation methodology that would apply absent the bankruptcy.See Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Deriv. Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 08-13555, ---B.R.
A Western District of New York bankruptcy court has held that the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code apply to leveraged buy-outs of privately held securities. See Cyganowski v. Lapides (In re Batavia Nursing Home, LLC), No. 12-1145 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. July 29, 2013).
On June 25, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) issued a memorandum decision in the Lehman Brothers SIPA proceeding1 holding that claims asserted by certain repurchase agreement (“repo”) counterparties (the “Representative Claimants”) did not qualify for treatment as customer claims under SIPA.
Few courts have construed the meaning of “repurchase agreement” as used in the Bankruptcy Code, so the recent HomeBanc1 case out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware is a must-read for “repo” counterparties. The principal issue in HomeBanc was whether several zero purchase price repo transactions under the parties’ contract for the sale and repurchase of mortgage-backed securities fell within the definition of a “repurchase agreement” in Section 101(47) of the Bankruptcy Code.