近几年，受技术红利、产品市场、资本市场政策等多方面因素的影响，一些具有中国元素的美国公司寻求在中国境内（“境内”）市场的融资，探寻落地境内进而实现境内IPO的路径，但是，基于中美法律、税务系统的差异，在论证重组路径的过程中经常会耗费大量时间和金钱成本，往往因创始人和股东的美籍身份在重组过程中面临巨大的美国税负而导致重组搁浅。本文结合我们的实操经验对美国公司重组落回境内涉及的相关要点问题进行分析。

一、架构拆除的必要性

根据我国《公司法》，上市公司是指股票在证券交易所上市交易的、在中国境内设立的股份有限公司。但是，对于境外主体在境内A股上市的突破体现在根据《关于开展创新企业境内发行股票或存托凭证试点若干意见的通知》规定红筹企业允许发行股票或存托凭证在境内上市，例如“H公司（证券代码：688***）”以红筹企业通过直接跨境发行股票的方式以及“J公司（证券代码：689***）”以红筹企业通过发行存托凭证（CDR）的方式在境内上市，但前述情形下对于拟上市公司“红筹企业”的行业、预计市值等方面要求较高，且“红筹企业”一般被认为是注册在境外，主要经营活动在境内的企业[1]。因此，对于主要业务运营在美国且融资平台注册在中国境外的主体目前仍难以在境内直接上市。

前言

《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《破产法》”）在公平清理债权债务、维护社会经济秩序等方面起到了重要的作用。但《破产法》下限制表决权的条款也因缺乏统一具体的适用标准——尤其是庭外程序表决效力的延伸、职工债权人和出资人表决权规范缺失等——而导致问题层出不穷，本文拟探其详并予建议。

一、破产表决权限制条款的适用问题

（一）禁反言规则在破产程序中的适用

《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（以下简称“《九民纪要》”）第一百一十五条认可了庭外重组协议在破产重整中的效力，但是在司法实践中仍然存在诸多问题。

第一，《九民纪要》第一百一十五条明确的是庭外重组与庭内重整程序的衔接。从文义解释角度，该条仅能适用于最终转化为破产重整的庭外重组程序。而庭内企业拯救程序不仅包括破产重整程序，同时也包括破产和解程序。庭外债务重组协议的效力能否延伸到破产和解程序中仍有待进一步明确。

The finality of asset sales and other transactions in bankruptcy is an indispensable feature of U.S. bankruptcy law designed to maximize the value of a bankruptcy estate as expeditiously as possible for the benefit of all stakeholders. To promote such finality, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits reversal or modification on appeal of an order authorizing a sale or lease to a "good-faith" purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending appeal. What constitutes "good faith" has sometimes been disputed by the courts.

Since May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued three decisions addressing or potentially impacting issues of bankruptcy law. These included rulings concerning the abrogation of sovereign immunity for Native American tribes under the Bankruptcy Code, and for instrumentalities of Puerto Rico under a similar statute enacted in 2016 allowing the Commonwealth to restructure its debts. The Court also handed down an opinion concerning a homeowner's entitlement to the surplus proceeds of a real estate tax foreclosure sale.

Whether a dispute that is subject to arbitration can or must be referred to arbitration after one of the parties to a prepetition arbitration agreement files for bankruptcy has long been a source of disagreement among bankruptcy and appellate courts due to a perceived conflict between the Federal Arbitration Act and the Bankruptcy Code. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently provided some useful guidance regarding this issue.

To prevent "trafficking in corporate shells," the Bankruptcy Code prohibits any discharge of corporate or partnership debts if the debtor is not an "individual" and, in a chapter 11 case, if the debtor proposes a liquidating chapter 11 plan contemplating the cessation of the debtor's business following confirmation.

A bankruptcy trustee's ability to avoid and recover pre-bankruptcy preferential transfers is essential to preserving or augmenting the estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. In 2019, however, the Bankruptcy Code was amended to add a due diligence requirement to the Bankruptcy Code's preference avoidance provision, apparently as a way to minimize the volume of speculative and coercive preference litigation.

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions to creditors in a "structured dismissal" of a chapter 11 case that violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules without the consent of creditors. However, because the Court declined to express any "view about the legality of structured dismissals in general," many open questions remain regarding the structured dismissal mechanism.

In In re Golden Sphinx Ltd., 2023 WL 2823391 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Mar. 31, 2023), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California denied a motion filed by a creditor of a chapter 15 debtor seeking discovery from a bank that had provided financing to one of the debtor's affiliates.

There is longstanding controversy concerning the validity of third-party release provisions in non-asbestos trust chapter 11 plans that limit the potential exposure of various non-debtor parties involved in the process of negotiating, implementing and funding a plan. In the latest chapter of this debate, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit handed down a long-awaited ruling regarding the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in the chapter 11 plan of pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma, Inc. and its affiliated debtors (collectively, "Purdue").