本文拟以某案例为切入点，揭示及探讨政府和社会资本合作（Public-Private Partnership，下称PPP）项目中社会资本方因项目合同主体问题而面临的潜在风险及可能的风险防范措施。

1. 案例情况简述

项目投资人A公司（外国公司）与B政府签订某项目投资框架协议，约定由A公司设立项目公司C以负责建设、运营某污水处理厂特许经营项目，并在对项目建设时间、技术要求、费用确认机制等关键条件做出约定的同时，明确“详细条款在正式合同中约定”。

随后，B政府作为甲方与A公司作为乙方签订PPP项目合同，约定项目按照合同要求建设并投入运营后，由B政府承担向乙方支付污水处理费的义务（最终用户向B政府付费），并且“当项目公司成立后，乙方在本协议项下的所有权利和义务自动转让给项目公司”。

根据前述协议，A公司设立由其100%控股的项目公司C，由C公司承继PPP项目合同中与建设、运营项目相关的所有权利义务。C公司主要通过向当地银行贷款的方式进行项目融资，以完成项目建设并将污水处理厂投入运营。

Faced with thousands of complex potential claims from creditors, and a soon-to-expire letter of comfort, the liquidators of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) sought creative and efficient relief in the Federal Court of Australia to implement an expedited adjudication process to adjudicate and admit these claims without creditors having to individually establish causation for their loss or damage: Woodhouse (liquidator), in the matter of Forex Capital Trading Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] FCA 600.

The issue of whether directors, officers, and/or shareholders breached their fiduciary duties to a company prior to bankruptcy is commonly litigated in chapter 11 cases, as creditors look to additional sources for recovery, such as D&O insurance or “deep-pocket” shareholders, including private equity firms. The recent decision in In re AMC Investors, LLC, 637 B.R. 43 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) provides a helpful reminder of the importance of timing in bringing such claims and the use by defendants of affirmative defenses to defeat those claims.

过去数年，打包重组（Repackaging）结构盛行，中资金融机构寻求使用其作为便利进入市场的工具，并为客户提供创新的融资方案。

中国房地产行业是最广泛使用该结构的行业之一，该行业在2021年高开低走、大起大跌，并于最后一季急挫。市场预期房地产行业在2022年仍将困难重重。

在此背景下，我们察觉到安排人（Arranger）、中国房地产企业及投资者正在寻求对现有的打包重组交易进行结构调整（restructure）的机会（包括提前终止、展期、增加额外增信措施、置换等安排）。此外，我们还观察到，市场对与中国非房地产行业主体（如融资租赁公司、金融科技公司）相关的资产支持交易的兴趣有所增加。

我们将于本文探讨部分有关修订或提前终止打包重组交易的主要问题，并且概述我们在市场中观察到的典型案例和未来趋势。

温故知新：打包重组交易的基本结构

许多较为简单的打包重组交易的结构一般具有下列特点：

Courts Begin to Wrestle with the Impact of on a Debtor’s Ability to Recover Estate Property

In a 2021 chapter 15 decision, In re Bankruptcy Estate of Norske Skogindustrier ASA,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that foreign law avoidance claims that are sufficiently analogous to claims under section 548(a)(1)(A)² of the Bankruptcy Code—but not identical—may fall within the intentional fraud exception to the safe harbor provisions of section 546(e)³ of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Safe Harbor”).

The COVID-19 pandemic hit the bottom line of many businesses. Among the hardest hit industries has been the travel industry and, in particular, airlines and aviation companies. Many airlines are still struggling to generate new ticket sales as compared to pre-pandemic levels and average fares remain depressed.¹ One industry source predicts that passenger numbers will not return to 2019 levels prior to 2024.² Compounding this are increased costs of fuel (up 35% so far this year) and other expenses.³

The COVID-19 pandemic hit the bottom line of many businesses. Among the hardest hit industries has been the travel industry and, in particular, airlines and aviation companies. Many airlines are still struggling to generate new ticket sales as compared to pre-pandemic levels and average fares remain depressed.¹ One industry source predicts that passenger numbers will not return to 2019 levels prior to 2024.² Compounding this are increased costs of fuel (up 35% so far this year) and other expenses.³

Despite recent criticisms of venue selection and cries to limit or curtail various provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York demonstrates that the bankruptcy courts may continue to broadly interpret the scope of their jurisdictional reach and the powers and authorities granted to them under the Bankruptcy Code. In In re JPA No. 111 Co., Ltd., No. 21-12075 (DSJ) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb.

The High Court of Australia’s decision in Wells Fargo Trust Company, National Association (as Owner Trustee) & Anor v VB Leaseco Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) & Ors (the “Willis” case).

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022, the High Court of Australia handed down its decision in the Willis case.