引言

自2022年5月起，上市公司“携带”未到期可转债进入预重整或重整程序的案例逐步在A股视野中涌现。截至目前，重整计划成功执行并顺利处置可转债违约风险的只有*ST正邦（002157）和*ST全筑（603030）两个案例。作为一种上市公司破产重整领域的新兴产品，由于可转债具有债权性、股权性和二级市场可交易等特点，较重整中的其他普通债权更具特殊性，给上市公司破产重整提出了“新课题”，应当在重整中进行定制化处理。

可转债在上市公司破产重整中的处理方式保持了其作为金融工具“进可攻，退可守”的特点，债券持有人可以选择到期兑付、转卖或转股。因此，重整方案设计中最为核心的是保护可转债原持有人在可转债产品项下的合法权利。通常做法为保留可转债持有人一定期限的交易及转股权利，利用可转债的特殊规则为持有人做好权利保护衔接，实现上市公司与持有人的利益共赢。

本文谨从可转债的特殊性及权利保护措施、实践中主要案例总结及重整方案设计要点等三个方面展开，对存续可转债在上市公司破产重整中的处理方式进行总结和探讨。

一、可转债的特殊性及权利保护

（一）可转债的特殊性

引言

2020年10月5日国务院发布的《关于进一步提高上市公司质量的意见》（国发〔2020〕14号）中明确规定，“上市公司实施破产重整的，应当提出解决资金占用、违规担保问题的切实可行方案”。2022年3月，沪深交易所分别发布《上海证券交易所上市公司自律监管指引第13号——破产重整等事项》《深圳证券交易所上市公司自律监管指引第14号——破产重整等事项》，进一步明确了上市公司在申请破产重整时，需要提交包含资金占用情况和违规担保情况的自查报告。至此，上市公司破产重整中两大“红线问题”暨资金占用及违规担保问题，已被提到了空前的高度。在重整前或重整中解决资金占用及违规担保问题已成为法院受理上市公司破产重整的必要条件。

资金占用系指非经营性资金占用，即上市公司控股股东及其关联方非经营性占用上市公司资金，以及变相利用经营性资金往来的形式达到实质非经营性占用上市公司资金的行为。违规担保，系指上市公司及其控股子公司违反法律法规规定或公司章程规定,或超过规定限额对外提供担保的行为。对于陷入危机的上市公司而言，违规担保往往表现为上市公司为控股股东及其关联方提供担保，也是控股股东变相占用上市公司资金的一种形式。因此，资金占用及违规担保问题在上市公司破产重整中往往相伴相生，需要一并解决。

In a recent case, the Victorian Supreme Court said that an accountant ‘would know well that a statutory demand involves strict time frames for response and potentially very significant consequences for a company’. The accountant failed to take appropriate steps to inform the company of the statutory demand.

The statutory demand process

If a company does not comply with a statutory demand within 21 days of service, it is deemed to be insolvent and the creditor may proceed to wind up the company.

A recent court decision considers the legal principles and sufficiency of evidence when a court-appointed receiver seeks approval of their remuneration.

A court-appointed receiver needs court approval for the payment of their remuneration. The receiver has the onus of establishing the reasonableness of the work performed and of the remuneration sought.

A Supreme Court in Australia has dismissed an application by a UK company’s moratorium restructuring practitioners for recognition of a UK moratorium and ordered that the company be wound up under Australian law.

The decision provides insights into the interaction between cross-border insolvencies and the winding up in Australia of foreign companies under Australian law.

Introduction

In the matter of Hydrodec Group Plc [2021] NSWSC 755, delivered 24 June 2021, the New South Wales Supreme Court:

It is possible for a trustee in bankruptcy to make a claim to property held by a bankrupt on trust. For example, by lodging a caveat over a home that is held on trust.

A trustee in bankruptcy may be able to make a claim, relying on the bankrupt’s right of indemnity as trustee of the trust. This is because the bankrupt’s right of indemnity, as trustee, is itself property that vests in the trustee in bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act 1966.

Explaining a trustee’s right of indemnity

A 139ZQ notice issued by the Official Receiver is a powerful tool for trustees in bankruptcy seeking to recover a benefit received by a third party from an alleged void transaction. These include transactions such as an unfair preference, an undervalued transaction, or a transaction to defeat creditors.

Given the adverse consequences for noncompliance, a recipient of a 139ZQ notice should take it seriously and obtain legal advice without delay.

Section 139ZQ notices

Section 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) provides that accrued employee entitlements must be paid in priority to the holder of a circulating security interest in a winding up.

Until recently, it was unresolved whether the property subject to a circulating security interest should be determined as at the date the liquidation began, on a continuous basis, or at some other unidentified date.

It is unresolved whether a creditor can rely upon a section 553C set-off under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) to reduce an unfair preference claim. Until the controversy is resolved by a binding court decision, liquidators and creditors will continue to adopt opposing positions.

A company in liquidation served a creditor’s statutory demand for debt where there was a genuine dispute about the existence of the alleged debt. The statutory demand was set aside by the Court and the liquidators were ordered to personally pay costs on an indemnity basis.

What happened

In SJG Developments Pty Limited v NT Two Nominees Pty Limited (in liquidation) [2020] QSC 104: