In a recent order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench (NCLAT), dismissing two appeals in Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India, Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 807 of 2021 and Sudip Dutta @ Sudip Bijoy Dutta v. State Bank of India & Anr., Company Appeal (AT)(Insolvency) No. 740 of 2022 (dated 29 July 2022), it was held that merely by acquiring foreign citizenship after the execution of a deed of guarantee, a personal guarantor cannot escape his/her liability under the guarantee.

Legal nature of a keepwell deed

Keepwell deeds are widely used in offshore financing transactions, but such arrangement has only been tested in the PRC courts in recent years. In this alert, we explore issues relevant to the enforceability of such arrangements in Mainland China.

On 05 July 2022, a Full Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in Jaipur Trade Expocentre Private Limited v. M/s Metro Jet Airways Training Private Limited, Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 423 of 2021, held that a claim towards unpaid license fees for an immovable property would constitute an operational debt under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) and consequently constitute a debt in default for initiating the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP).

引言

近年来，伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化，融资租赁成为了争议高发领域，并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例，根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》，在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中，融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三，同比上升65.93%，争议标的金额则位居第二，仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中，对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]

本篇中，我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验，从程序及实体两个角度，分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称“《民法典》”）生效前的存量项目中，出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中，我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭，进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。

一、 “困局”：租赁物被承租人擅自处分，出租人的物权保障岌岌可危

Introduction

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (the Board) vide its circular no. IBBI/2022-23/GN/REG084 dated 14 June 2022, in exercise of the powers conferred under clause (t) of sub- section (1) of section 196 read with sections 7, 9 and 240 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (the Code) has introduced the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) (Second Amendment) Regulations, 2022 (Amendment Regulations).

Amendments

Introduction

Recently, by a judgment dated 30 May 2022, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Courtin the case of Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited versus A. Balakrishnan & Anr (Judgment dated 30 May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 689 of 2021) held that a recovery certificate issued the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1992 (RDB Act) would qualify as a “financial debt” under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), and give rise to a fresh cause of action under section 7 of the IBC.

The Supreme Court of India in Indian Overseas Bank v M/s RCM Infrastructure Ltd. & Anr. held that a sale under section 13 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (“SARFAESI Act”), would be regarded as complete only upon receipt of full consideration towards the sale properties.

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。

INTRODUCTION

India has been grappling with an increase in non-performing assets (NPA) and defaults of loans since at least the 1990s. As per recent reports, gross NPAs of public sector banks have doubled in the last 7 (seven) years, 1 which is indicative of the issues being faced by lenders against recalcitrant borrowers.