Fulltext Search

在当前的投融资环境下,国资背景的投资方常常承担着地方政府的返投任务,对被投企业的注册地点存在特定诉求,因此,若被投企业未注册在此类投资方期待的特定地区,则投资方可能会要求被投企业迁址以实现当地的招商引资。市场上已出现部分项目的投资方以此作为投资交割的前提条件。

优质企业无疑都是各地的“心头肉”,能为当地带来税收效益、工作岗位等。因此,企业的迁出之路可能面临迁出地政府“不放手”、迁出和迁入程序衔接不顺畅等一系列疑难问题,可能拉长迁址进度,甚至实质上无法最终完成迁址。

为协助企业顺利实现“迁址”目的,我们在相关交易中对企业迁址的命题进行重新思考和思路转换。事实上,除了直接变更注册地址,企业也可考虑通过股权重组进行股权结构的调整,以满足投资方对于变更融资主体及后续上市主体所在地的需求。但此等“重组式迁址”也并非一路坦途,如有不慎,同样可能面临法律和税务的障碍和风险,因此需要提前对这类重组交易进行审慎考量和规划。

一、直接迁址的障碍和难点

Debt exchanges have long been utilized by distressed companies to address liquidity concerns and to take advantage of beneficial market conditions. A company saddled with burdensome debt obligations, for example, may seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with the same outstanding principal but with borrower-favorable terms, like delayed payment or extended maturation dates (a "Face Value Exchange"). Or the company might seek to exchange existing notes for new notes with a lower face amount, motivated by discounted trading values for the existing notes (a "Fair Value Exchange").

One of the primary fights underlying assumption of an unexpired lease or executory contract has long been over whether any debtor breaches under the agreement are “curable.” Before the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts were split over whether historic nonmonetary breaches (such as a failure to maintain cash reserves or prescribed hours of operation) undermined a debtor’s ability to assume the lease or contract.