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：
In its recent judgment in Guy Kwok-Hung Lam v Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP [2023] HKCFA 9, the Court of Final Appeal of Hong Kong has provided guidance as to how an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a financing agreement impacts on the ability to bring a bankruptcy or winding up petition in Hong Kong. In light of prior inconsistent judgments on the issue, the CFA decision provides welcome clarity as to the impact of exclusive jurisdiction clause on insolvency proceedings and when it may still be appropriate to commence them.
Background
This Quickguide explains the two most common forms to bring a solvent company's life to an end and explains the processes involved in each, as well as in which circumstance which option may be best suited.
Strike-off or members' voluntary liquidation?
When a company has fulfilled its economic purpose or a group of companies wishes to consolidate its structure, there are two main options available to bring a solvent company to an end:
German real estate group restructuring plan sanctioned in London
Having failed to get its restructuring solution through in its home jurisdiction, beleaguered German real estate group, Adler, turned to London. After substituting a UK plc as issuer of six series of notes in order to propose an English restructuring plan, and in the face of fierce opposition from an ad hoc committee of 2029 noteholders (AHG), the group successfully forced the plan through just in time.
Introducción
Este mes destacamos especialmente dos resoluciones judiciales recaídas en relación a dos planes de restructuración: (i) una es la sentencia de la audiencia provincial de la Coruña que resuelve sobre la impugnación del plan de XELDIST cuya homologación fue tan discutida por su peculiar formación de clases (4 de 8 de ellas eran unipersonales) (ii) otra la homologación del plan de SINGLE HOME que sale adelante con el voto favorable tan solo de la clase de los especialmente relacionados.
Introducción
En este mes comienzan a publicarse algunas resoluciones interesantes en aplicación de la Ley 16/2022 en relación a planes de restructuración y nombramientos de experto. En este campo preconcursal tan de moda son especialmente reseñables:
As the economic headwinds indicate that borrowers will continue to face financial pressures in 2023 and beyond, lenders are seeking ways to exercise more leverage as “covenant-lite” facilities prevail. Material adverse change clauses in finance documents UK and US perspective By Olga Galazoula, Jacques McChesney and Charlotte Harvey 4 FUNDS INSIDER FUNDS INSIDER 5 The event relied upon by the lender to enforce this clause was the making of an arbitration award that could potentially result in significant damages being awarded against the borrower.
Spanish Insolvency Law 16/2022
Introducción
Este mes las resoluciones reseñadas son menos y de menor relevancia que el mes pasado. Destacamos en todo caso el auto de homologación de uno de los primeros planes de restructuración aprobados tras la entrada en vigor de la nueva ley 16/2022 con una peculiar formación de clases donde muchas de ellas son clases unipersonales.
También destacamos un auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil número 3 de Gijón que niega el embargo preventivo de los bienes de los administradores de la concursada por no apreciarse que vaya a existir un déficit concursal.