目前对于陷入困境但仍具备重整价值及重整可行性的企业而言，破产重整是其实现风险出清和企业重生的重要方式。在破产重整中，投资人参与的主要方式包括股权投资、资产投资和债权投资等，其中股权投资为较为重要的投资方式（其基本流程如下图），本文将结合实践，从投资人视角，浅析破产重整中股权投资的机遇和风险防范，以期为投资人参与重整投资提供帮助。
图1：破产重整中股权投资基本流程图
一、重整投资的机遇
现阶段，重整投资作为“新一轮招商引资”处于重要机遇期。以上市公司重整为例，2023年7月底的数据显示其中超90%的产业投资人和财务投资人账面呈现浮盈[1]；2024年以来，截至11月，有44家上市公司被申请重整及预重整，较前一年同期增加超四成[2]。由此可见，破产重整蕴含着较多投资机会，其在目前政策环境、价值发掘、成本控制和业务整合等方面均展现出投资“机遇”。
It is not uncommon for contractors, in several industry sectors, to contract with a special purpose vehicle (SPV), whose day-to-day management is effectively controlled by a parent company, and the SPV has with little to no assets beyond cash flow provided by its parent. In this article we look at what a claimant could do outside of the traditional insolvency process in circumstances where the SPV goes into a form of external administration such as administration or liquidation and there are no assets available to the external administrators.
在当前的投融资环境下，国资背景的投资方常常承担着地方政府的返投任务，对被投企业的注册地点存在特定诉求，因此，若被投企业未注册在此类投资方期待的特定地区，则投资方可能会要求被投企业迁址以实现当地的招商引资。市场上已出现部分项目的投资方以此作为投资交割的前提条件。
优质企业无疑都是各地的“心头肉”，能为当地带来税收效益、工作岗位等。因此，企业的迁出之路可能面临迁出地政府“不放手”、迁出和迁入程序衔接不顺畅等一系列疑难问题，可能拉长迁址进度，甚至实质上无法最终完成迁址。
为协助企业顺利实现“迁址”目的，我们在相关交易中对企业迁址的命题进行重新思考和思路转换。事实上，除了直接变更注册地址，企业也可考虑通过股权重组进行股权结构的调整，以满足投资方对于变更融资主体及后续上市主体所在地的需求。但此等“重组式迁址”也并非一路坦途，如有不慎，同样可能面临法律和税务的障碍和风险，因此需要提前对这类重组交易进行审慎考量和规划。
一、直接迁址的障碍和难点
Introduction
在 Sian Participation v. Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16一案中，布里格斯勋爵（Lord Briggs）和夏宝伦勋爵（Lord Hamblen）代表委员会作出判决，认可了关于清盘呈请的传统做法。两位法官确认，即使产生债务的合同包含仲裁条款，亦不能削弱债务人证明债务确实存在实质性争议的责任（下称“可审理问题标准”）。
该案中，委员会的观点与香港高等法院暂委法官王鸣峰资深大律师（William Wong SC）在 Dayang v. Asia Master Logistics [2020] 2 HKLRD 423 一案中的观点（见判词第82、98段）如出一辙，可归纳如下：
In Sian Participation v. Halimeda International [2024] UKPC 16, Lords Briggs and Hamblen, delivering judgment on behalf of the Board, endorsed the traditional approach to winding-up petitions. Their Lordships confirmed that a debtor’s duty to show that the debt is genuinely disputed on substantial grounds (“Triable Issue Standard”) remains undiluted even if the contract from which the debt arose contains an arbitration clause.
Insurers with unwanted runoff blocks of business should consider the latest guidance from insurance regulators on potential transactional structures that could mitigate this issue.
Introduction
Keepwell deeds have been commonly used in financing arrangements entered into by business groups in Mainland China and foreign lenders because of the former limitation on repatriating proceeds raised overseas by Mainland companies, which had necessitated the use of foreign subsidiaries and a security structure.
Harbour Front Limited v The Official Receiver and Trustee of the Property of Leung Yat Tung [2024] HKCFI 1203 provides an interesting illustration of how the ‘prevention principle’ may be applied in an unusual scenario of a claim for contractual interests under a settlement agreement. Whilst contractual provisions are unlikely to provide for any express constraint on a claim for contractual interests, the judgment offers valuable insight into how such a claim may nonetheless be subject to limitation.
In Re Simplicity & Vogue Retailing (HK) Co., Limited[2024] HKCA 299, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP, Barma and G Lam JJA) held that the approach regarding exclusive jurisdiction clauses in bankruptcy proceedings laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in Re Lam Kwok Hung Guy, ex p Tor Asia Credit Master Fund LP (2023) 26 HKCFAR 119 (“Guy Lam CFA”) (upholding the Court of Appeal’s judgm