(12) 信托计划中受托人对股权投资应当如何进行管理？
实践中，信托计划受托人取得股权主要基于两种情形，一是基于受托而取得股权，即委托人将自己合法持有的股权作为信托财产，转移至受托人管理和处分；二是基于投资而取得股权，即委托人先把自己合法持有的信托资金或其他财产转移至受托人，进而由受托人通过管理、运用该等受托财产，以增资、受让等方式投资取得股权并对该等股权进行管理和处分。
基于受托人取得股权的不同情形，受托人对股权投资的管理责任不完全相同。
如受托人系基于受托取得股权，受托人的股东身份更接近“名义股东”，其对投资股权的管理主要受限于信托合同约定的信托财产的运用及管理方式。
Recent caselaw demonstrates that there is a current judicial disagreement over whether the Bankruptcy Code will permit a cramdown in a jointly-administered bankruptcy case when a consenting class exists for only one of the debtors. This implicates the important issue of de facto substantive consolidation and the potential risks it poses to unsecured creditors.
On March 5, 2018, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in U.S. Bank National Ass’n ex rel. CWCapital Asset Management LLC v.
The Bankruptcy Code provides bankruptcy trustees, debtors, and creditor committees with “avoidance powers” that allow them to set aside and recover certain transfers that a debtor made before filing for bankruptcy.[1] These avoidance powers are, however, limited by a number of exceptions enumerated in the Bankruptcy Code, including the securities safe harbor at § 546(e). Section 546(e) protects from avoidance any transfer “made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . .
Introduction
On September 22, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals held that § 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) provides a creditors’ committee with an “unconditional right to intervene” in an adversary proceeding.[1] In reaching this conclusion, the court reversed the District Court for the District of Puerto Rico’s order denying an intervention motion and distinguished its own precedent, on which the District Court had relied. This decision further bolsters the right of creditors’ com
On June 22, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware allowed a putative creditor class to file a class proof of claim in the In re Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc., et al., bankruptcy proceedings.[1] In granting
On April 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) halted the attempt of plaintiffs who were injured in an accident involving a General Motors vehicle to seek recourse against General Motors LLC (“New GM”) in state court, finding that New GM did not assume liability for the plaintiffs’ claims. This decision provides yet another reminder to t
On 31 March, 2015, the Supreme People’s Court issued four model cases, including Shagang LLC. (Shagang) v. Kaitian LLC.(Kaitian), a case in relation to an objection to enforcement of a distribution plan. In the case, the Court has referred to the Deep Rock Doctrine originated from the United States, states for the first time that shareholders whose capital contribution is insufficient shall be subordinated to external creditors of the company with respect to their payable debts.