Fulltext Search

回购条款作为资管产品中常见的增信措施,资管新规对其有何影响?

资管新规之前,回购条款的效力得到法院普遍认可

回购条款本质上是一种逆向的、独立的交易行为,属于合同债权的范畴。其虽然具有一定的债权保障作用,但不构成债权担保的从属性,更不具有担保物权的优先受偿功能。因此,回购条款并非我国的法定担保形式。

资管新规之前,司法实践中,法院在考察当事人意思表示和内容的合法性基础上,一般会认可回购条款的合法有效性。

在“重庆国际信托股份有限公司与安徽三联实业发展有限公司等合同纠纷案”(〔2015〕渝高法民初字第00025号)中,法院认为,“《资产收益权转让及回购协议》系当事人的真实意思表示,不违反法律、行政法规的强制性规定,合法有效。结合信托公司提供的营业执照和金融许可证上载明的内容,信托公司签订的上述合同不违反金融监管部门核准的经营范围;且本案合同所涉的借款资金来源并不影响借款合同本身的效力。”

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a patent dispute case, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Although the case has nothing to do with bankruptcy law, its outcome could have a substantial impact on bankruptcy practice and litigation.

The Supreme Court two years ago ruled in Baker Botts v. Asarco that bankruptcy professionals entitled to compensation from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate had no statutory right to be compensated for time spent defending against objections to their fee applications.

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in PEM Entities LLC v. Levin, in which it will decide whether federal or a state law should apply when a debt claim held by a debtor’s insider is sought to be recharacterized in bankruptcy as a capital contribution and treated as equity. The case raises important questions about the extent to which the commencement of a proceeding under the U.S.

In Millenium Lab Holdings, Delaware District Court Judge Leonard Stark, on an appeal from a bankruptcy court order confirming a plan of reorganization, recently upheld a challenge to the bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority to release claims against non-debtor third parties under the plan.

Judge Kevin Gross of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware handed down an important ruling last week that turned aside most of an unusual challenge to the fees and expenses of an indenture trustee in the long-running Nortel chapter 11 case. The dispute has been watched closely by financial institutions that serve as trustees on bond issuances. (Kelley Drye & Warren LLP represented a large creditor in the Nortel case but took no part in the issues discussed here).

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. during the new term that began last week. The questions it presents are relatively simple. First, can a bankruptcy court, in dismissing a case under the U.S.