中伦观点

在系列上篇中，我们梳理了地产项目债务重组相关政策，结合经验总结债务重组的原则、项目与项目公司尽职调查实务重点。在下篇中，我们着重梳理困境项目重组方案经验，并分享对行政赋能的一些思考，供读者参考。

房地产行业高速发展10余年，在“房住不炒”的宏观背景以及2020年8月“三道红线”政策后，因房地产行业的发展模式及市场发展规律、政策执行力度、国家宏观调控等多方面的原因，房地产市场从2021年9月开始经历行业“缩表”的阵痛，不少大型房地产企业先后出现债务风险，面临诸多的困难处境，继而影响资金方、施工方、材料设备供应方及购房业主等多方主体。房地产市场影响国民经济及民生多个方面，在行业困境下，政府亦在监管、维稳、施救等多方面遇到难题。表面上看，各方主体皆可按政策与法律处理，但实操中，商业诉求与法律的平衡，经济效果与社会效果、法律效果的协调，社会资源的调度与节约，仍需探索最佳路径。

本文仅就困境项目的成因、市场常见盘活方案等问题，从法律角度予以整理，请勿以此作为法律意见在实践中套用。

一、困境项目重组方案

房地产行业高速发展10余年，在“房住不炒”的宏观背景以及2020年8月“三道红线”政策后，因房地产行业的发展模式及市场发展规律、政策执行力度、国家宏观调控等多方面的原因，房地产市场从2021年9月开始经历行业“缩表”的阵痛，不少大型房地产企业先后出现债务风险，面临诸多的困难处境，继而影响资金方、施工方、材料设备供应方及购房业主等多方主体。房地产市场影响国民经济及民生多个方面，在行业困境下，政府亦在监管、维稳、施救等多方面遇到难题。表面上看，各方主体皆可按政策与法律处理，但实操中，商业诉求与法律的平衡，经济效果与社会效果、法律效果的协调，社会资源的调度与节约，仍需探索最佳路径。

单纯的法律手段难以解决问题的情形下，笔者认为：房地产困境的解决，最终需要落实到具体的房地产项目庭外重组与盘活。开展全行业性的政策拯救或对大型地产公司进行全面的庭外重组盘活，需假以时日并多方共同努力。因此，结合近一年多的地产项目重组盘活经验，笔者希望从政府管理、商业诉求、法律实践等方面，为各方在房地产项目困境中破局提供些建议，达到解决具体房地产项目的实际问题，使项目价值最大化，最大程度实现各方利益诉求，从一定程度上缓解目前房地产困境。

本文仅就困境项目的成因、市场常见盘活方案等问题，从法律角度予以整理，请勿以此作为法律意见在实践中套用。

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.

Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities  against another party (“Party Two”).