Fulltext Search

引言

近年来,伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化,融资租赁成为了争议高发领域,并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例,根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》,在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中,融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三,同比上升65.93%,争议标的金额则位居第二,仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中,对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]

本篇中,我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验,从程序及实体两个角度,分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》(以下简称“《民法典》”)生效前的存量项目中,出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中,我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭,进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。

一、 “困局”:租赁物被承租人擅自处分,出租人的物权保障岌岌可危

On July 6-7, 2017, Craig Jalbert, in his capacity as Trustee for F2 Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 187 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending on the nature of the claims). In certain instances, the Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 15, 2017, Curtis R. Smith, as Liquidating Trustee of the Hastings Creditors’ Liquidating Trust, filed approximately 69 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Liquidating Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 13, 2017, The Original Soupman, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively “Debtors” or “Original Soupman”) commenced voluntary bankruptcy proceedings under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. According to its petition, Original Soupman estimates that its assets are between $1 million and $10 million, and its liabilities are between $10 million and $50 million.

On May 17, 2017, GulfMark Offshore, Inc. (“GulfMark” or “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Starting on April 28, 2017, Craig R. Jalbert, as Distribution Trustee of the Corinthian Distribution Trust, filed approximately 122 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548, 549 and and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code (depending upon the nature of the underlying transactions). The Distribution Trustee also seeks to disallow claims of such defendants under Sections 502(d) and (j) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Whether a claim against company management is direct or derivative is not infrequently disputed in litigation before the Delaware Court of Chancery. This determination becomes important in many contexts, including whether it was necessary for plaintiff to make a pre-suit demand upon the board, whether derivative claims of a company have been assigned to a receiver, or whether such claims have previously been settled in a prior litigation.

Not uncommonly, a preference complaint fails to adequately allege that the transfers sought to be recovered by the trustee were made “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made”, as required under Section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, when faced with a complaint to recover alleged preferential transfers, a defendant can proceed in one of two ways: (i) file an answer and raise affirmative defenses, or (ii) move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).

In the recent decision of In re Molycorp, Inc., 562 B.R. 67 (Bankr. D. Del. 2017), Judge Sontchi held that a carve-out provision in a DIP financing order did not act as an absolute limit on the fees and expenses payable to counsel to the creditors committee in a case with a confirmed chapter 11 plan.

On March 2, 2017, Cal Dive Offshore Contractors, Inc. (“Cal Dive” or “Debtor”) filed approximately 136 complaints seeking the avoidance and recovery of allegedly preferential and/or fraudulent transfers under Sections 547, 548 and 550 of the Bankruptcy Code.