Investors in non-performing loans ("NPLs") continue to look for new jurisdictions and opportunities to achieve attractive returns on capital. Much of the European NPL market is now in a relatively advanced state (particularly in the more mature parts of the market such as UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain and, to a lesser extent, Italy). Funds are, therefore, looking further afield for NPL opportunities. One interesting jurisdiction, given the 1.71 trillion yuan (c.US $270 billion) of NPLs held by commercial banks, is China.
Chinese bankruptcies have surged recently as the government uses the legal system to deal with “zombie” companies and reduce industrial overcapacity as part of a broader effort to restructure the economy. According to figures from the Supreme People’s Court, Chinese courts accepted 5,665 bankruptcy cases in 2016, an increase of 53.8% from the previous year1. As the Chinese government and the courts become more receptive to bankruptcies, without a mature market-based credit system in place, the risks heighten that debtors and creditors could try to game the bankruptcy process.
一、“假股权，真债权”
近年来“假股权，真债权”的话题越来越热，实践中的规模也越来越大，其中基建和房地产是“假股权，真债权”类资产主要投资方向。所谓“假股权，真债权”指的是A公司（通常为金融机构）购买并持有B公司的股权并不是以经营为目的的长期持有，通常B公司或其股东C会与A公司签订溢价回购协议，约定在到期日以固定价格回购，因此A享有的并非股权而是债权。
“假股权，真债权”能够存在与发展一个重要原因是：公司为了满足监管层面的要求，为了满足银监会提出的“四三二原则”（所谓“四三二原则”指的是“四证”——《国有土地使用证》、《建设用地规划许可证》、《建设工程规划许可证》和《建设工程开工许可证》齐全、项目资本金比例达到30%、开发商或其控股股东具备二级资质。）中的30%控制资金比例要求，因此企业会通过发行股票的形式来筹集资金——为了能够按计划或短时间内达到30%控制资金的标准，企业可能通过与投资方签订利息补偿协议以获得投资，此类行为即为“假股权，真债权”。该原则在最近一次重申于2010年12月8日发布的《关于信托公司房地产信托业务风险提示的通知（银监办发343号）》当中。
February 2017 N° 19 Fondo Atlante and the future for the financial institutions Tommaso dalla Massara Some news on insolvency procedures Fabio Marelli EU Commission first draft of ePrivacy Regulation Rocco Panetta Insurance Distribution Directive Guido Foglia ACROSS THE EUNIVERSE 2 In this Issue Editorial Giovanni Moschetta, Bernard O'Connor 3 What's App in Europe 4 Bernard O'Connor The next big thing for European data protection: EU Commission publishes first draft of ePrivacy Regulation to be discussed during GDPR transition period 6 Rocco Panetta, Francesco Armaroli Critical features of
In Judge Glenn’s recent lengthy decision recognizing and enforcing a restructuring plan in the chapter 15 proceedings of In re Agrokor1, a Croatian company in Croatian insolvency proceedings, he highlighted that the concept of comity – respect for rulings in other countries – remains an important U.S.
Law 1676 of 2013 (Secured Interest Law), which came into effect in 2014, has substantially affected the legal scope of creditors’ rights in the context of insolvency proceedings (reorganization and liquidation). In particular, the law has potentially created a new type of creditor; the secured creditor, which has rights that differ from those creditors included in the creditor hierarchy in the Civil Code and the Corporate Insolvency Law.
The Financial Operations and Pre-Bankruptcy Settlement Act
1. Introduction
The system of claim enforcement in Croatia is primarily regulated by two core laws: (i) Enforcement Act (Official Gazette No. 112/2012 and 25/2013) determining procedure of mandatory enforcement of claims including the procedure of voluntary security of claims; and (ii) the Act on Enforcement of Financial Assets (Official Gazette No. 112/2012) providing legal framework for the enforcement of claims against financial assets.
In the context of streamlining procedures and avoiding lengthy processes, the Insolvency Service and the Bankruptcy and Liquidation Companies’ Division of the Registrar of Companies and Official Receiver of Cyprus announced that the procedure followed for granting authorization to open or maintain a debtor or bankrupt bank account has been abolished.