受OPEC与俄罗斯减产谈判进展及后续措施影响，3月9日开市以来原油价格强劲下行，连带其他相关大宗商品价格以同样惊人的幅度大幅下跌，朋友圈纷纷感叹“活久见”。2020年初的黑天鹅接踵而至，很难判断下一站的走势到底在哪，也难判断对国内期货等金融市场的传导究竟会到何种程度。在这个价格剧烈波动的日子，人们耳边又回响起华尔街故老相传的”Bulls make money, bears make money, pigs get slaughtered” 的残酷谚语。在目前中国境内证券期货市场中，和做空手段相对有限的股票市场相比，期货市场天然的多头-空头交易机制可以更直观的展现这句话的涵义。

1、当我们在谈论“强行平仓”和“三板强平”时，我在谈些什么？

期货交易的亏损并不仅指强行平仓带来的损失，但是面对如此惊人的市场变化，“爆仓”、“强行平仓”和“三板强平”这类期货术语或行话还是最让人屏住呼吸的字眼。与肾上腺素飙升，杀伐决断的Trader们以及或焦虑或欣慰的相关企业的关注点不同，作为律师的我们，视线停在了这些期货术语或行话背后的基础法律关系上。从机制本身出发：

In a recent decision, In re Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, L.P., No. 14-000255-mdc (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2019), the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that state sovereign immunity does not prevent bankruptcy courts from hearing fraudulent transfer claims against states.

On January 13, 2020, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued an opinion in In re La Paloma Generating Company, LLC., Case No. 16-12700 [Adv. Pro.

The United States Supreme Court has granted certiorari on an issue that has greatly divided Circuit Courts of Appeal – the question of whether an entity that retains possession of a debtor’s property has an affirmative obligation to return that property to the debtor or trustee immediately upon the filing of the bankruptcy petition or risk being in violation of the automatic stay.

The Supreme Court, in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC,¹ issued an unanimous opinion last week, ruling that the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit correctly denied the ability of creditor Ritzen Group Inc.

This article was first published in the Global Restructuring Review, 14 Jan 2020.

The United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a Delaware bankruptcy court case that held that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a)¹The case declined to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.²

A recent bankruptcy court decision out of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, In re Verity Health Sys. of Cal., Inc., Case No. 2:18-bk-20151 (ER) (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2019), is a good reminder of how difficult it is for a purchaser under an asset purchase agreement to get out of the deal by invoking a Material Adverse Effect clause (also known as a Material Adverse Change clause) (an “MAE”).

2019年11月14日，最高院正式发布第九次全国法院民商事审判工作会议的会议纪要——《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（简称“《九民纪要》”）。

对资产证券化圈的许多机构从业者，《九民纪要》具体有什么样的意义可能不太熟悉。在这里，我们还是借用引言中的一句话来体现它的意义：

“对当前民商事审判工作中的一些疑难法律问题取得了基本一致的看法。”

《九民纪要》的条款中，与金融业务有关的就可以说是包罗万象。但在正式看条款和案例之前，不妨先再来品读一下它的引言部分：

这些统领性原则，结合一些代表性案例，我们认为，会赋予证券化业务更多的司法支持。具体体现在：

In a highly anticipated decision issued last Thursday (on December 19, 2019), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held in In re Millennium Lab Holdings II, LLC that a bankruptcy court may constitutionally confirm a chapter 11 plan of reorganization that contains nonconsensual third-party releases. The court considered whether, pursuant to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits a bankruptcy court from granting such releases.