Make-whole clauses (also known as prepayment premiums, call premiums or call protection) are provisions in financing transactions that require the borrower to make a specified payment to the lender if a loan is prepaid before the scheduled maturity. This payment is typically made by the borrower as a lump sum upon early termination and is designed to compensate the lender for the loss of the anticipated yield that lenders expect when providing (or committing to provide) the financing over a specified term.

引言

企业国有资产无偿划转，是指企业国有资产在政府机构、事业单位及特定国有企业之间的无偿转移，其作为一种特殊的产权转移方式，具有程序简单、高效便捷、无偿等优势，是国有企业进行资产重组调整的重要方式之一。我国目前已经逐步建立起相对完善的无偿划转制度体系，但无偿划转实务中仍有不少问题尚待明确。厘清国有资产无偿划转过程中的疑难问题，对于正确适用无偿划转制度及促进国有资产保值增值皆有重要意义。

一、企业国有资产无偿划转的制度体系及适用

（一）企业国有资产无偿划转的制度体系概述

自2003年国务院国有资产监督管理委员会（以下简称“国务院国资委”）成立后，我国的国有资产无偿划转制度逐步完善，并形成了现有涵盖有限责任公司、非上市股份有限公司、上市公司的无偿划转制度体系，所涉及的主要规则如下：

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) Chair Martin Gruenberg gave remarks to the Cities for Financial Empowerment Fund 2023 Bank On National Conference yesterday in which he said that the FDIC “shares the Bank On movement’s commitment to advancing Americans’ economic inclusion in the banking system.”

近年来，金融机构债权人委员会（以下称“金融债委会”）越来越多地参与到大型、知名企业的金融债务重组案例中。实践中，多数金融债委会都会以协议或决定的方式确立 “一致行动原则”。这一原则对金融机构债权人的影响如何？金融机构债权人又当如何应对？本文中，笔者将对这一原则进行解读和分析，并基于笔者的执业经验提出相应建议。

一、金融债委会确立“一致行动原则”的动机

根据银保监会等四部门联合发布的《关于印发金融机构债权人委员会工作规程的通知》（银保监发〔2020〕57号，以下简称《工作规程》），金融债委会系庭外金融债务重组过程中设立的协商性、自律性、临时性组织，其成员主要为金融机构。与破产阶段的债权人委员会的职权由《企业破产法》直接作出规定不同，金融债委会的组织架构、议事规则和工作流程，以及各成员机构权利义务、成员机构退出机制、解散程序等事项均约定于当事人自愿签署的债权人协议中。

设立金融债委会的目的是为金融机构债权人搭建集体协商、共同决策、一致行动的工作平台，避免在企业债务危机爆发后个别金融机构单独“出逃”引起“踩踏”，为企业债务危机的化解争取时间和空间。因此，金融债委会成员有动力明确并遵守“一致行动原则”。

In years past defaulting lender mechanics in a subscription credit facility may have been viewed as boiler plate language and, in most cases, the relevant provisions have not received much attention. In light of recent events in the banking industry, defaulting lender provisions have gained some renewed attention. In this article we take a look at the current general state of defaulting lender provisions and the impacts on the lender and borrower.

我国现行的《环境保护法》、《民法典》侵权责任编、《企业破产法》以及最高人民法院相关司法解释对于追究企业的环境侵权民事责任作出了相应的规定，但对于企业破产阶段的环境侵权之债的清偿顺序问题，并未作出明确规定，如果仅将其作为普通债权进行处理，往往导致企业的环境债务无法得到清偿。在此前提下，破产程序中的环境债务问题已引起司法部门高度重视。2022年11月4日，贵阳市中级人民法院出台的《贵阳市中级人民法院关于审理企业破产案件中涉生态环境问题处理的工作指引》，体现出法院不断强化环境保护司法力度的趋势；2023年2月，最高人民法院发布的推进碳达峰碳中和典型案例四“杭州某球拍公司破产清算案”[1]，将案涉危废物处置费用作为破产费用列支，充分反映出司法对生态环境保护愈加强化。

破产企业环境债务与职工债务、税务债务一样，均具有社会性、公益性的特殊性质，同时环境债务所承载的环境治理长远性意义尤甚。因此，破产企业环境债务的清偿问题亟待厘清。

一、企业破产程序中的环境债务

（一）环境债务的形成

What Happened

In a ruling issued just yesterday, MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC et al., 598 U.S. ----, 2023 WL 2992693 (2023) (“MOAC”), the United States Supreme Court (the “Supreme Court”) held that Bankruptcy Code section 363(m) is not jurisdictional in terms of appellate review of asset sale orders, but rather, that such section only contains limitations on the relief that may be afforded on appeal. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is often relied upon by purchasers of assets in a bankruptcy case as providing finality to any sale order.

On March 14, 2023, Judge Ashely M. Chan of the U.S.

Since 1993, decisions out of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York consistently adopted the aggregate “rent approach” for calculating lease rejection damages in bankruptcy proceedings. But in Bankruptcy Judge Wiles’ recent decision in In re Cortlandt Liquidating LLC, he departed from the “rent approach” in favor of the “time approach,” which is based on the time remaining under the lease rather than factoring in the total or aggregate rent still owed under the lease.