引言：近期某集团破产清算案中，关于债务人与境外基金债权人之间因“维好协议”引发的纠纷事项，上海金融法院作出裁定，对境外债权人在香港特别行政区取得的对该债务人的胜诉判决予以认可，鉴此该境外债权人的债权有望在破产程序中获得确认。而其他破产案件中，管理人对境外投资人基于“维好协议”的债权作出不予确认的决定。由此，关于“维好协议”项下的债权人应如何主张权利、在“维好提供方”破产的情况下可否享有破产债权人地位并参与破产程序等问题众说纷纭。为此，本文将从“维好协议”的性质入手，在境内“维好提供方”破产语境下，阐述“维好协议”项下债权人可以主张权利的路径，并分析各救济途径在司法实践中的可行性。

一、“维好协议”的性质分析

（一）何谓“维好协议”

合伙型基金退出时，合伙人之间可能因存在争议而无法自行组建清算组或虽然组成清算组却无法顺利完成清算。这便引发合伙型基金可否通过法院程序进行司法清算的问题。我们曾代理过一起非常罕见的合伙型基金司法清算的案件，开创上海市指定第三人担任基金清算组负责人的先例，案件在其他诸多方面都在上海地区乃至全国具有领先地位和创新意义。

所谓司法清算，亦即强制清算，是相对于企业自行清算而言，一般是指法院介入合伙型基金清算程序的制度，可以是法院组建清算组，也可能是法院监督清算程序，亦或当清算出现障碍时请求法院排除妨碍等。针对公司的强制清算，最高人民法院出台了《最高人民法院关于适用中华人民共和国公司法>若干问题的规定（二）》（以下简称“《公司法司法解释（二）》”）及《关于审理公司强制清算案件工作座谈会纪要》（以下简称“《公司强清纪要》”）。但有关合伙型基金的清算尚无较为全面和细致的立法体系，因此，合伙型基金通过司法方式进行强制清算的先例很少，且争议颇多。

Yesterday, in Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology LLC, the Supreme Court held that a trademark licensee may continue using a licensed trademark after its licensor files for bankruptcy and rejects the relevant license agreement. While a debtor-licensor may "reject" a trademark license agreement under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code, such rejection is only a breach of the agreement and does not allow the licensor to revoke the licensee's rights.

An insolvent enterprise incorporated in Mainland China (“PRC”) or its creditors (“Applicant”) may institute a bankruptcy proceeding against the insolvent enterprise under the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (“Bankruptcy Law”) by the filing of a bankruptcy petition. There have long been complaints by industry practitioners that PRC courts are reluctant to register bankruptcy petitions.

任何在中国内地（“”）注册成立的企业，如不能清偿到期债务，并且资产不足以清偿全部债务或者明显缺乏清偿能力的，可由该企业或其债权人（“”）提交破产申请，继而根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）对该企业发起破产法律程序。但是，长期以来，备受业内人士诟病的是，中国法院迟迟未对破产申请实施立案登记制度。在此背景下，最高人民法院（“”）于2016年7月颁布指导通知[1]（“《2016年最高院通知》”），旨在简化和规范登记破产案件的立案受理工作。

最高院通知：优化立案程序

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) safe harbors do not prevent a liquidation trust from pursuing some state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims assigned to the trust by creditors.1 Notably, the Bankruptcy Court declined to follow the Second Circuit's recent Tribune decision, in which the Second Circuit concluded that the Section 546(e) safe harbors apply to state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims on federal preemption grounds.2 Instead, the Bankruptcy Court decided that federal preemption did not appl

Since April, two bankruptcy courts have refused to enforce limited liability company ("LLC") agreement provisions requiring the respective LLCs to obtain the unanimous consent of their members in order to seek bankruptcy relief.1 On June 3, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court") relied on federal public policy to invalidate an LLC agreement provision requiring unanimous member consent to file bankruptcy where the member at issue owed no fiduciary duties to the LLC and the member's primary relationship to the

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion regarding a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”).1 The question on appeal was whether debtor Louis Bullard (“Bullard”) could immediately appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 payment plan (the “Plan”).2 The Court held that denial of confirmation of a debtor’s plan is not a final, appealable order.3  

Case Background

It should be common knowledge that a secured creditor, having received proper notice in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, faces the risk that its lien will be extinguished if it fails to object to a reorganization plan that does not specifically preserve the lien. Apparently, however, not all secured lenders realize this risk, and some fall prey to a trap for the unwary in §1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code by failing to protect their liens and place their collateral at risk.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") recently affirmed a broad reading of the safe harbor of United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") section 546(e), which protects from avoidance both "margin payments" and "settlement payments" as well as transfers made in connection with a "securities contract." In Quebecor, the Second Circuit affirmed decisions of the bankruptcy and district courts and held that the purchase by Quebecor World (USA) Inc.