Fulltext Search

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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently upheld a trial court’s rejection of a borrower’s allegations that a mortgagee and its servicer violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by allegedly inaccurately reporting her loan as delinquent following the borrower’s successful completion of her bankruptcy plan, allegedly rejecting her subsequent monthly payments, and filing a foreclosure action based on the supposed post-bankruptcy defaults.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently held that the anti-modification provision in the federal Bankruptcy Code applies to loans secured by mixed-use real properties, such as the large parcel at issue here which functioned both for commercial use and as the debtor’s principal residence.

A copy of the opinion in Lee v. U.S. Bank National Association is available at: Link to Opinion.

A look back at bankruptcy trends and litigation in 2023 reveals a spike in bankruptcy filings driven by economic factors and fallout from the pandemic while in upper courts several interesting cases were decided involving proofs of claim, stay violations, and discharge issues.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed the dismissal of several conversion claims brought by the estate of a deceased account holder against a bank, holding that one of the conversion claims was time-barred, and that the estate did not have standing to pursue the remaining conversion claims as the alleged injury was not fairly traceable to the bank.

A copy of the opinion in Muff v. Wells Fargo Bank NA is available at: Link to Opinion.

In an appeal involving a Chapter 12 bankruptcy, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit recently affirmed that the borrower’s use of the 20-year treasury bond rate sufficiently ensured that the total present value of future payments to the lender over the plan period equaled or exceeded the allowed value of the claim.

A copy of the opinion in Farm Credit Services of America v. William Topp is available at: Link to Opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently rejected a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance and fraudulent transfer claims, holding that a debt purchase and sale agreement between a bankrupt debtor, its original creditor, and its new creditor was not avoidable because it did not qualify as a transfer of “an interest of the debtor in property.”

Specifically, the Seventh Circuit determined that the transaction had no effect on the bankruptcy estate and the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions played no role.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently reversed a contrary trial court ruling and joined with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in holding that a Chapter 13 trustee is not entitled to a percentage fee of plan payments as compensation for her work in a Chapter 13 case when the case is dismissed prior to confirmation.

A copy of the opinion in Evans v. McCallister (In re Evans) is available at: Link to Opinion.