维好协议还好吗? 前 言 维好协议(KEEPWELL DEED)通常由在中国 1 注册成立的 母 公司签 署,为其 境 外 子 公司的融 资 进 行增信(CREDIT ENHANCEMENT)(见图表),最初常见于债券市场,近年 来也经常出现在贷款交易中。 提供维好承诺的母公司承诺维持其境外债务人子公司的财 务健康,以增强债权人对债务人的信心。 维 好协议 通常包含的承诺有:要求 维 好提 供方维持境外 维好协议与保证的主要区别 维好协议和保证有以下的重要分别 : 1. 仅就本文而言,“中国”或“中国内地”指中华人民共和国,不包括香港及澳门特别行政区和台湾。“境内”及“境外”有相应的意思。 债务人的净资产为正值、为其提供偿还债务的流动资金、 以 及保 持其对该等境 外债务人的管控 权和所有权等。其 中一些承诺或受制于取得相关中国政府部门的审批将资 金 汇出境 外的前 提 条 件,并且 维 好提 供 方必须尽最 大努 力获 得该 等审 批。除 签 署维 好协议 外,维 好 提 供 方通常 还 会 签 署股 权 购买承 诺(EQUITY INTEREST PURCHASE UNDERTAKINGS),即维好提供方承诺购买其境外债务人 子公司持有的若干股权,以便将资金(即购买对价)汇出境外。
金杜合伙人苏萌律师应联合国国际贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL)邀请作为碳交易及金融领域专家,于2024年1月31日和2月1日参加在维也纳举行的联合国贸易法委员会(UNCITRAL)专家组与国际统一私法协会(UNIDROIT)工作组关于自愿碳信用(VCC)法律性质的联席会议[1]。在联席会议上,苏律师就工作报告内容参与讨论并发表观点,并就中国自愿碳市场发展状况对研究报告做出修订和补充。
Introduction
Independent schools have not been immune from financial stress in recent years. Prior to the pandemic a combination of increasing staff costs, greater competition and the need for continual investment in technology and premises was already posing challenges for a number of institutions. This was exacerbated by the unique pressures of COVID, which saw income squeezed as a result of enforced school closures and reduced pupil numbers.
In a judgment that will be welcomed by insolvency professionals, the Supreme Court has today confirmed that administrators cannot be personally criminally liable for failing to notify the Secretary of State about plans for collective redundancies. This judgment follows an appeal by Robert Palmer against a finding that he was criminally liable for his failure to submit form HR1 in his capacity as the joint administrator of West Coast Capital (USC) Limited (USC).
What is the obligation?
This judgment reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to draw down their pension for the benefit of the creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.
Summary
The recent judgment handed down by the High Court in Manolete v White [2023] EWHC 567 (Ch) reinforces the Court’s power to order a judgment debtor to exercise a right to draw down on their pension for the benefit of creditors as recently seen in Bacci v Green.
The Facts
引言
按照《中华人民共和国企业破产法》(“《企业破产法》”)第三十二条[1]规定,管理人有权起诉请求法院撤销破产企业在一定期间内的个别清偿行为。债权人在面对该类个别清偿撤销诉讼时,时常面临举证困难、法律适用不明确等困境。
我们近期代理某金融机构债权人处理一宗个别清偿纠纷诉讼二审程序。本文将尝试结合这一案件,提出我们对上述法律规定的思考,讨论债权人应对个别清偿撤销诉讼的“困境”与“突围”,并且为债权人提供缓释该类纠纷带来的潜在风险的思路。
一、债权人应对个别清偿撤销纠纷的困境
为充实破产企业偿债资产、维护债权人公平受偿,《企业破产法》赋予管理人针对债务人破产前一定期间内特定行为的撤销权。本文关注的是《企业破产法》第三十二条指向的债务人在破产申请受理前6个月内的个别清偿行为,或称“偏颇性清偿行为”。依照该条规定,撤销该类行为需要满足以下条件:
Sova Capital Ltd (“Sova”) was an FCA authorised and regulated broker. Before it went into Special Administration, Sova provided investment brokerage services to institutional and corporate clients, mostly trading in the Russian market.
The war in Ukraine continues and the economic effect of sanctions against businesses that are connected to the Russian government are now being felt in earnest. Unsurprisingly, sanctions are becoming an increasingly hot topic for insolvency practitioners.
Recent months have seen the Courts hand down some important decisions, which provide helpful guidance on situations where the sanctions regime interfaces with insolvency processes. We have summarised three of the most significant in this article.
Summary
In the recent Court of Appeal decision Bacci v Green [2022] EWCA Civ 1393 the Court, upholding the decision of the High Court, held that a judgment debtor can be ordered to delegate authority to waive valuable tax protection and draw pension where doing so would enable creditors to extract what they were owed.
The Facts
In 2017, Matthew Green, son of established Mayfair art dealer Richard Green, committed fraud in obtaining loans from FundingSecure.