Fulltext Search

以物抵债,指债权人与债务人之间存在金钱债务,双方约定将债务人财产作价交付债权人抵偿债务的行为。实践中,主要分为两种类型,包括当事人双方协商的以物抵债和民事强制执行程序中的以物抵债程序,本文仅就前种以物抵债类型进行探讨。

近年来,随着新冠疫情影响,经济形势发生变化,再加上政策调控等多重因素打击,导致地产行业遭遇寒冬,现金流频繁遭受考验。迫于资金回款压力,为了缓解僵局,地产企业推出“工抵房”“内部房”等房源以期减轻对外负债或实现现金回流。其中,“工抵房”也被称为工程抵款房,是开发商用于给工程方抵扣工程款的一种方式,也是大众所俗称以物抵债的一种常见形式。虽然,工程方的需求是现金而并非房屋,但目前经济形势下,工程方面临开发商无款支付的现实局面,只能无奈被迫接受“工抵房”。尽管“工抵房”的出现使得开发商不再面临房子无路销售的难题,同时解决了部分应付款项;工程方能获得部分“工抵房”以解决工程资金被长期拖欠的难题;购房者可以更低价格买到“工抵房”从而降低购房成本,这一循环链看似多赢,实则隐藏大量法律风险。本文将从“工抵房”的角度,以工抵债权人的视角,对以物抵债的性质、模式、法律风险等维度进行分析,以期对实践和后续研究有所贡献。

一、以物抵债协议的性质

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/b/o Jerome Guyant, IRA v. Highland Construction Management Services, L.P. et al., Nos. 18-2450-52 (4th Cir. March 17, 2020), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld that a borrower’s indirect economic interests in a limited liability company (LLC) were not assigned to a lender under a conveyance in a security agreement assigning mere membership interests, pursuant to Virginia state law.

Facts

Setoff is a right that allows a creditor to offset a prepetition debt owed to a debtor with its prepetition claim against the debtor.  See In re Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 334 (5th Cir.

Setoff is a right that allows a creditor to offset a prepetition debt owed to a debtor with its prepetition claim against the debtor. See In re Luongo, 259 F.3d 323, 334 (5th Cir. 2001). This remedy is aimed at preventing the inequitable and inefficient result that occurs when a creditor is forced to pay a 100% of its prepetition debt owed to a debtor, without resolving its prepetition claim. In such circumstances, the creditor is often forced to later prosecute its unresolved claim against the debtor and is commonly only awarded a fraction of the value of its claim.

Bankruptcy and class actions each establish elaborate procedures and provide a convenient forum to resolve numerous claims against one or more defendants, in an efficient manner. However, while a class action focuses on providing adequate representation to claimants with similar claims, bankruptcy focuses on enabling an insolvent company to reorganize. The two goals do not necessarily blend well in every circumstance.

The Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”) became effective on February 19, 2020, after being enacted by Congress at blazing speed.  Indeed, the legislation was first introduced into the House of Representatives on June 18, 2019, was received by the Senate on July 24, 2019 and was signed by the President on August 23, 2019.  The SBRA is intended to help small businesses restructure their debts in bankruptcy more effectively.