随着内地与香港的经济贸易往来日益频繁，近年来破产案件中需要通过跨境破产合作解决的问题也日益增多。虽然2019年1月发布的《关于内地与香港特别行政区法院相互认可和执行民商事案件判决的安排》仍未将破产（清盘）案件包括在内，但是近年来实践中已经开始出现一些内地与香港法院互相承认对方破产（清盘）程序的效力、承认对方破产管理人（清盘人）地位的案例，这一新动向值得跨境投资者关注。

内地对香港清盘程序的态度

根据最高法2011年对《企业破产法》第五条的解释，香港法院作出的“清盘令不属于《企业破产法》下内地法院应认可和执行的境外法院的判决、裁定”。但是，最高法2014年审结的“新加坡中华环保案”为香港清盘人在内地法院审理的案件中代表被清盘公司诉讼创造了可能性。

该案原告是一家新加坡企业，已经破产并被指定了管理人。最高法院援引《涉外民事关系法律适用法》第十四条的规定，认为该案的争议问题实质是原告破产企业的代表人及其诉讼地位、相关权利的认定，应当适用原告登记地法律即新加坡法，进而认可破产管理人有权代表公司继续诉讼。根据这一裁判思路，内地法院有可能对已被清盘的香港公司适用其注册登记地法律，即香港法律，来认定香港清盘人在内地法院案件中的诉讼地位及相关权利，从而使香港清盘人有权代表被清盘公司在内地法院参加诉讼活动。

Shandong Chenming Paper Holdings Limited v Arjowiggins HKK 2 Limited CACV 158/2017 (date of judgment 5 August 2020)¹

Introduction

前记

执行是实现生效裁判文书债权的“最后关键一环”，是维护当事人合法权益的“最后一公里”。囿于执行领域纷繁复杂的法律规定以及各地司法实践的尺度不一，执行往往成为争议解决的重点及难点。我们长期专注于执行领域，代理了大量金融资管公司、上市公司的公证债权文书、诉讼/仲裁的执行案件。为此，基于执行实务经验，我们着眼于当前执行领域的热点难点问题，推出执行干货系列专题文章，敬请关注。

专题二

目前，法院通过网络拍卖平台处置财产已成为处置执行财产的主要方式，相比传统拍卖模式而言网络拍卖的效率可能更高，也更有利于保护债权的实现以及债务人的合法权益。近年来，越来越多的破产财产也同样通过网络拍卖平台高效处置。实践中，竞买人经常因为种种原因事后意图“悔拍”并寻求救济。对此，破产网络拍卖相关纠纷究竟属于何种性质？竞买人应选择什么程序进行救济？拍卖公告是否一律不得修改？本文结合司法实践对前述疑问进行单刀直入地解析。

破产网络拍卖的性质

Re Patrick Cowley and Lui Yee Man, Joint and Several Liquidators of the Company [2020] HKCFI 922(date of judgment: 27 May 2020)

In preparation for a post COVID-19 world, Chinese outbound investors have begun to source for bargain deals in other countries, with markets characterised by corporate restructurings, low prices, depressed valuations, distressed assets, and fire sales. In this article, we briefly set out some suggestions for Chinese outbound investors when entering into bargain M&A deals in this unprecedented M&A landscape.

UPDATED 3 AUGUST 2020

Updates marked with *

Updated: Ireland, Israel

We take a look at some of the recent emergency legislation and measures implemented by various nations around the world in response to COVID-19. As this is a rapidly developing crisis, please ensure you keep a close eye on the Lexology Coronavirus hub page for the most up-to-date information.

近期，北京市税务局发布了《关于进一步推进破产便利化 优化营商环境的公告》（2020年第4号，下称“4号公告”）、上海市高级人民法院与上海市税务局印发《关于优化企业破产程序中涉税事项办理的实施意见》（沪高法〔2020〕222号，下称“222号文”），旨在明确破产程序中的涉税事项，充分发挥破产制度在规范市场主体退出方面的重要作用。

破产是解决企业产业深层次矛盾，优化资源配置，提升企业产业质效的重要法治途径。破产程序中涉税事项的处理是重要一环，妥善处理破产事宜无法忽视涉税问题。实践中，我们作为税务律师也经常能接到破产程序中涉税事项的咨询，部分案件中涉税事项甚至成为左右破产程序能否顺利推进的重要因素，其中不乏争议的问题，部分问题可以从两份文件中找到答案或启示，我们在此结合两份文件的亮点与重点，对于破产程序中的涉税相关事项做简要梳理，并探讨合理应对之策。

一 非正常户、发票问题的解决

In addition to cases that are similar to those the previous two batches concerning enforcement against enterprises over pandemic prevention and control materials, the 13 cases in this third batch also contain examples of enterprises not in the pandemic prevention and control materials business resuming work and production. The cases fully shows how the courts used the Internet and telephones to coordinate and negotiate enforcement during the epidemic, thereby keeping public order, minimizing losses and achieving wins for multiple parties.

The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has profoundly reshaped the global business landscape. Some companies that only months ago seemed unstoppably profitable have been brought to an existential brink by extended lockdowns, supply chain failures, and other obstacles caused by the pandemic. Other companies who have experienced less disruption (or in some cases windfalls) stand at the threshold of opportunity even as they prepare themselves for the challenges of the 'new normal'.

Introduction

The past decade has witnessed a significant increase in cross-border commerce involving Chinese companies. If these ventures fail, a common dilemma for our clients has been which jurisdiction they should focus their efforts on when enforcing their rights. As we explain below, the success of a cross-jurisdictional recovery claim can often depend on the important tactical decision of focusing on the correct jurisdiction(s) at the outset.

Identify all relevant jurisdictions