清算退出是私募基金全生命周期的“最后一公里”，直接关系投资者本金回收、基金财产安全处置及管理人合规责任闭环。若管理人怠于履行清算义务，不仅会触发监管处罚，更可能引发投资者集体仲裁/诉讼，严重损害市场声誉。

此前，本系列指南已覆盖基金募集、投资运作、投后管理等环节的合规要点；本篇作为第四篇，将聚焦清算退出环节的高频违规场景，拆解法律风险、明确监管依据、提供可落地的自查与整改方案，为管理人合规开展清算工作提供指引。

一、私募基金管理人怠于履行清算义务

1、典型案例简介

北京中扶私募基金有限责任公司（化名，以下称“中扶公司”）系在中国基金业协会登记的股权类私募基金管理人。2018年5月，中扶公司备案“中扶3号基金”（以下称“涉案基金”），募集规模人民币5,000万元，合伙协议明确约定基金存续期为5年，其中前4年为投资期，最后1年为退出期。涉案基金备案完成后完成对2家标的企业的股权投资，并约定如被投企业未在约定时间内完成上市或并购，被投企业实控人需按“本金+年化8%收益”的价格回购涉案基金持有的股权。

The UK retail sector faces ongoing challenges from shifts in consumer behaviour and persistent economic pressures. In this light, Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 has become a vital mechanism for struggling companies, enabling them to undertake a holistic restructuring, effectively using one process rather than combining the Part 26 scheme technology with the CVA as had been the case prior to the introduction of the restructuring plan.

Introduction

The High Court sanctioned Madagascar Oil Limited’s restructuring plan, exercising cross class cram down. The judgment deals with a few now familiar points: what is the relevant alternative? Can it be a different deal? As well as touching on a few novel ones in an unusual two class only plan: was there in fact an in the money class enabling cross class cram down? Almost a third of the judgment is devoted to international recognition and effectiveness of the plan in Madagascar and Mauritius, an unusually detailed analysis, but required here given the specific facts of the case.

In a significant further application of the Court of Appeal’s reasoning in Adler, Thames Water and Petrofac, the High Court declined to sanction a cross-class cram down restructuring plan proposed by Waldorf Production UK Plc.

On 12 June 2025, the Council of the EU announced that member states have agreed on a general approach to a directive aimed at bringing national insolvency standards closer together. This draft directive is designed to make the EU more attractive to foreign and cross-border investors by reducing the legal uncertainties and complexities associated with differing national insolvency laws.

Introduction

On 20 May 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his eagerly-awaited judgment sanctioning the two inter-conditional restructuring plans (the Plans) proposed by members of the Petrofac Group. The judgment raises issues described as “going to the heart of the Part 26A regime” and is significant as the first case to consider the application of the Court of Appeal’s ruling in Thames Water.

The judgment addresses three particularly interesting points:

On 8 April 2025, Mr Justice Marcus Smith delivered judgment granting Petrofac Limited and Petrofac International (UAE) LLC (the Plan Companies) permission to convene creditor meetings in respect of two inter-conditional restructuring Plans (the Plans). The fulsome judgment, following hearings on 28 February and 20 March, contains a number of interesting points:

The Sino-Ocean restructuring plan is the first to be sanctioned in 2025 – but it starts the year off with a very interesting bang. In a relatively short (and commendably clear) judgment, the Court addresses head on:

New rules in the UK allow Companies House to share non-public information with insolvency officeholders and the Official Receiver.

While in many cases there may be limited non-public information available from Companies House that will be useful to insolvency officeholders, this is another tool available to deploy in appropriate cases. It is specifically envisaged to assist officeholders pursuing claims for fraudulent and wrongful trading, transactions at an undervalue and preferences.