关于最高人民法院审委会专职委员刘贵祥大法官在全国法院金融审判工作会议上发表的题为“关于金融民商事审判工作中的理念、机制和法律适用问题”的讲话（“讲话稿”），我们在上篇及中篇中对“关于进

对于《最高人民法院关于适用〈中华人民共和国民法典〉有关担保制度的解释》（下称“《民法典担保解释》”或“新规”）对金融资管业务的影响，我们在上篇及中篇中从担保物权受托持有、增信文件性质、上市公司对外担保、担保物权登记、抵押预告登记等角度进行了详细探析。本篇我们将从资产收益权回购交易、仲裁与申请实现担保物权程序、担保与破产衔接角度，着重介绍新规的修订及对金融资管业务的影响。择重点概括如下：

一、新规明确特定资产或资产收益权转让及回购交易中让与担保规则的处理方法

合伙型基金退出时，合伙人之间可能因存在争议而无法自行组建清算组或虽然组成清算组却无法顺利完成清算。这便引发合伙型基金可否通过法院程序进行司法清算的问题。我们曾代理过一起非常罕见的合伙型基金司法清算的案件，开创上海市指定第三人担任基金清算组负责人的先例，案件在其他诸多方面都在上海地区乃至全国具有领先地位和创新意义。

所谓司法清算，亦即强制清算，是相对于企业自行清算而言，一般是指法院介入合伙型基金清算程序的制度，可以是法院组建清算组，也可能是法院监督清算程序，亦或当清算出现障碍时请求法院排除妨碍等。针对公司的强制清算，最高人民法院出台了《最高人民法院关于适用中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定（二）》（以下简称“《公司法司法解释（二）》”）及《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》（以下简称“《公司强清纪要》”）。但有关合伙型基金的清算尚无较为全面和细致的立法体系，因此，合伙型基金通过司法方式进行强制清算的先例很少，且争议颇多。

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.