摘要

近年来，随着市场环境的急剧变化，中资美元债违约事件频发。其中，维好协议（Keepwell Deed）作为一项相对创新的增信工具，因特殊的法律定位，可执行性一度成为争议的焦点。2025年3月19日，中国香港终审法院对北大方正集团有限公司维好协议案的裁定再次引发业界关注。本文拟通过剖析维好协议在中资美元债中的适用背景、条款特征，结合典型案例，总结维好协议的法律风险与实践挑战，以期为相关的跨境融资和资本市场参与者提供借鉴和参考。

一、维好协议的背景与整体概况

（一）中资美元债的现状与发展

在某些情况下，开曼公司的官方清算人可能能够采取行动追回公司破产前转移的资产。对于那些关注濒临破产的开曼公司事务的人来说，了解开曼群岛官方清算人和大法院所拥有的法定权力至关重要。

可撤销的优先权

《公司法（修订版）》（「该法」）规定，「在公司无法偿还第93 条所指的债务时，公司为了使该债权人优先于其他债权人而对任何债权人作出、招致、承担或遭受的任何财产转让或转移，或对财产的抵押，以及每项付款义务和司法程序，如果是在清算开始前六个月内作出、招致、承担或遭受的，经公司清算人申请，均可撤销。」

值得注意的是，如果在清算开始前六 (6) 个月内发生、产生、取得或遭受付款，则向开曼公司「关联方」支付的款项应被视为是为了给予债权人优先权而支付，因此，根据公司清算人的申请，该款项可予撤销。

如果债权人有能力控制开曼公司或在公司财务和经营决策方面施加重大影响，则该债权人应被视为「关联方」。

公司在什么情况下无法偿还债务？

若发生下列情况，开曼公司将被视为无力偿还债务：

(a) 未遵守法定要求；

介绍

英属维尔京群岛（「BVI」）的清算不具有救援功能，标志着公司生命周期的结束。 BVI 的清算可以是：

1) 破产清算，因此受《2003 年破产法》（经修订）（「破产法」）管辖；或者

2) 有偿付能力的清算，因此受英属维尔京群岛商业公司法（经修订）（「公司法」）管辖。《公司法》经《2022 年 BVI 商业公司（修订）法》和《2022 年 BVI 商业公司（修订）条例》（「修订」）修订。

本简报列出了与英属维尔京群岛自愿清算相关的一些要点。我们准备了另一份简报涵盖《破产法》下与破产清算相关的问题。

自愿清算的目的

当公司不再被业务需要并且需要解散时，通常采用自愿清算——这将使清算人能够处理公司的资产（如果有）并偿还任何负债（如果有），以便解散有偿付能力的公司。自愿清算的过程相当简单且成本低廉，有助于公司有秩序地结束。

程序

《公司法》第 197(1) 条规定了公司自愿清算的标准。公司只有在以下情况下才可以进入自愿清算：

Con sentenza n. 3450 dell’11 gennaio 2025, la Suprema Corte di Cassazione ha chiarito, con un’interessante decisione, il concetto di “debito scaduto”, contestualizzandolo nella questione di diritto alla stessa presentata. Nello specifico, la Corte di Cassazione ha stabilito che si applichi la revocatoria fallimentare ex art. 67, comma 1, n. 4, L.F. (ora art.

Introduction

Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.

In In re 301 W North Avenue, LLC, 2025 WL 37897 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2025), a bankruptcy court recently addressed provisions in a loan agreement and limited liability company (“LLC”) operating agreement as to their effect on permitting the filing of a bankruptcy petition. The loan agreement provided that a bankruptcy petition can be filed with the unanimous consent of all members and the consent of the independent director. The agreement further provided that there must be at least one independent director reasonably satisfactory to the lender.

The decision in York, in the matter of Exactech, Inc [2024] FCA 1522 reaffirms the scope to recognise a US chapter 11 bankruptcy in Australia as a foreign main proceeding ^[1] and demonstrates the importance of interim stay orders in protecting the assets of debtors and the interests of creditors until the final determination of the recognition application.

The common law of assignments for benefit of creditors (“ABCs”) has been around for a very long time as an out-of-court process under the law of trusts: debtor is trustor, assignee is trustee, and debtor’s creditors are beneficiaries.

And the common law of ABCs had already been well-established, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified.

The intersection of state escrow laws and federal bankruptcy laws can create confusion and surprise for contracting parties.

The Problem & Four Examples

The problem creating such confusion and surprise is this. State escrow laws:

• are, typically, defined by the common law;
• lack precise details; and
• are often applied in bankruptcy to the detriment of the party who believes a valid escrow exists.

Here are four examples of the escrow / bankruptcy problem.