过去三年中，受新冠疫情影响，大量企业面临无法清偿到期债务、资不抵债或者明显缺乏清偿能力的困境，法院受理破产清算案件的数量直线上升。最近，笔者也作为破产管理人的一员参与了一起有限合伙企业的破产清算案件，引发了笔者对于有限合伙企业及其普通合伙人共同承担合伙企业债务过程中破产的先后顺序的思考。本篇文章仅浅论普通合伙人因承担有限合伙企业对外债务的连带责任而被申请破产的情形，其因自身债务而进入破产清算程序的情况暂且不论。

• 案情简介

公司A为有限合伙企业B的唯一普通合伙人，现有B的债权人C要求A对B的对外债务承担连带责任，但A无力偿还，故C向法院申请对A进行破产清算，法院裁定受理并指定笔者所在单位作为A的破产管理人，而笔者在履行管理人职务的过程中，发现C并没有同步申请B破产，且B对外存在或有应收账款，如能悉数收回，且足以偿还对C的债务，则A可以免于被申请破产清算。此外，如A被宣告破产，则B也须及时推选或委任新的普通合伙人，否则B将因仅剩有限合伙人而陷入需要解散的境地。

在此情形下，C仅向法院申请对A进行破产清算是否合理引起了笔者的疑问。

前言

美国时间3月10日，加州金融保护与创新部宣布关闭美国硅谷银行（SVB），由联邦存款保险公司接管硅谷银行，原因是流动性不足和资不抵债。值得注意的是，硅谷银行作为服务于美国甚至全球创投圈的专业性银行，其关闭和破产犹如一块巨石在创投圈砸出了巨大的水花，并且波及整个水面。美国著名创投公司Y Combinator CEO将硅谷银行破产事件称为“初创公司的灭绝性事件”。

据相关媒体报道，位于北京的一家创投基金负责人向记者表示，受硅谷银行事件牵连，国内个别创投机构在硅谷银行仍有存款或者其他相关业务，正忙着处理资金问题。从私募基金的角度而言，我们不禁担忧：硅谷银行的此次破产事件是否可能影响由其托管的私募基金的财产安全呢？该事件对境内的私募基金又有哪些警示呢？对此，本文拟梳理境内私募基金托管法规和自律规则，并就相关风险提供专业建议。

一、私募基金托管“三问”

1、第一问：哪些类型的私募基金必须托管？

根据《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》¹、《私募投资基金备案须知》²等相关规定，目前四类私募基金必须或者原则上必须托管：

(1）契约型私募投资基金 

Sometimes we blog about cases with unusual fact patterns. The cases don’t stand for any overriding legal principle. They might not have application beyond the parties to them. But they can make for good reading, giving insight into how judges analyze and rule on the issues at stake.

A recent decision in the District of Delaware is such a case. In re Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., No. 19-10603, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1557 (Bankr. D. Del. June 15, 2023).

Amendments to the Malaysian Insolvency Act 1967 were passed by the Dewan Rakyat on 24 May 2023. 

A few key points arising from the amendments are:

1. Sub-section 33B (2A) was amended to include 2 new categories where bankrupt individuals may be able to qualify for a discharge from bankruptcy and the creditor(s) may not object:

In a decision likely to have a knock-on effect for future fraudulent transfer defense and valuation litigation, the Delaware bankruptcy court recently ruled that the price agreed in the sale of an oil and gas company closed by market participants represents the reasonably equivalent value for the assets being sold and is more reliable evidence of value than expert testimony prepared for the purposes of litigation.

As we have written here on multiple occasions, the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) disadvantages employers in several ways. Despite permitting recovery similar to what might be obtained in a class action, class certification rules do not apply and it is an open question whether courts can even limit an unmanageable claim before trial.

Subchapter V of the Bankruptcy Code’s Chapter 11 is relatively new: it took effect as a new law on February 19, 2020. Accordingly, new questions continue to arise on how its terms and provisions should be applied.

A Trustee Fees Question

One Subchapter V question is this:

• When does a Subchapter V trustee’s administrative claim for fees and costs get paid?

A Regular Chapter 11 Answer

The answer in regular Chapter 11 has always been this:

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indiansv. Coughlin after the First Circuit barred the Lac du Flambeau Band from seeking to collect on a $1,600 debt obligation to the tribe’s lending arm, Lendgreen, after the debtor filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Little can be more frustrating to an association than when a non-compliant homeowner files for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy laws are complex, and navigating them can be a challenge even for the most sophisticated managers. One of the broadest protections for homeowners that file bankruptcy is the “automatic stay.” This provision of the bankruptcy code immediately halts all efforts to enforce any claim against the debtor that may affect the homeowner’s property, including collection of overdue assessments and non-compliance fees.

In a highly anticipated decision issued on May 30, 2023, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its opinion in Purdue Pharma LP v. City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma LP)¹ approving a Chapter 11 plan’s inclusion of a nonconsensual release of creditors’ direct claims against non-debtor third parties.

This client alert describes the history of the case, identifies some of the key takeaways from the decision and outlines where other jurisdictions in the country stand on nonconsensual third-party releases.