2019年12月24日，最高人民法院邀请全国人大法工委、司法部、发改委、人民银行、证监会等单位在京召开了全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会，并讨论了《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》（征求意见稿）（以下简称“《纪要》（征求意见稿）”）。会后，市场成员对会上提供的《纪要》（征求意见稿）文本进行了认真学习与热烈讨论。大家普遍认为，该文件正式公布后，将成为司法领域第一份专门针对债券及其纠纷审理机制的文件，不仅为法院审理各类债券纠纷案件奠定坚实基础，更将成为市场成员合法合规开展债券业务、避免或减少法律风险的重要指引。
根据对《纪要》（征求意见稿）的学习，我们希望通过对该文件总体框架及其诸多亮点的简要分析，促进市场成员对债券纠纷解决机制的法律与实务研究工作。在《纪要》正式公布之后，我们将准备一系列文章对相关重要问题进行深入探讨。同时，《纪要》正式公布版本可能对征求意见稿进行修改，需以《纪要》正式公布版本为准。
2019年11月14日，最高院正式发布第九次全国法院民商事审判工作会议的会议纪要——《全国法院民商事审判工作会议纪要》（简称“《九民纪要》”）。
对资产证券化圈的许多机构从业者，《九民纪要》具体有什么样的意义可能不太熟悉。在这里，我们还是借用引言中的一句话来体现它的意义：
“对当前民商事审判工作中的一些疑难法律问题取得了基本一致的看法。”
《九民纪要》的条款中，与金融业务有关的就可以说是包罗万象。但在正式看条款和案例之前，不妨先再来品读一下它的引言部分：
这些统领性原则，结合一些代表性案例，我们认为，会赋予证券化业务更多的司法支持。具体体现在：
Sit Kwong Lam v Petrolimex Singapore Pte. Ltd [2019] HKCA 1220 (date of judgment 1 November 2019)
But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] 5 HKC 238 (date of judgment 2 August 2019)
The Companies Court has changed the approach in which winding up proceedings are handled when the alleged debt is the subject of an arbitration agreement in the case of Lasmos Limited v Southwest Pacific Bauxite (HK) Limited [2018] HKCFI 426. In two recent bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeal made obiter comments on the Lasmos approach.
Chinese firms acquiring foreign assets has been a hot topic for some time. But one often overlooked question is what happens to those overseas assets if the Chinese business fails? Given the scale of Chinese investment overseas and the financial problems currently being experienced by many Mainland businesses, this question is of growing importance. Two recent decisions – one in Hong Kong and one in New York – address this issue and point to the growing demystification and recognition of Chinese insolvency law outside China.
CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 167 (date of judgement 13 January 2020)
This is the first case in which the Hong Kong Court granted a recognition order to administrators of a PRC company appointed by a PRC Court. The case also considered whether a garnishee order nisi should be made absolute if a foreign bankruptcy order is made after the service of the garnishee order nisi.
Background
Just in time for Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognising a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. InJoint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.
In our work with international companies supplying goods to the UK, we see a number of common issues arising regularly. In our previous articles, we explained what happens if a UK customer hits financial difficulties and the powers of insolvency practitioners. In this last of five articles based on the five elements of the Wu Xing, we take the theme of Earth and explain the options to get paid by an insolvent customer, completing the business as usual cycle of supply and payment and thereby restoring balance to your business.
How the recent changes will impact restructurings of listed companies
前言
根据《公司法》第186条第2款的规定，公司在分别支付清算费用、职工的工资、社会保险费用和法定补偿金，缴纳所欠税款，清偿公司债务后的剩余财产（“清算后的剩余财产”），有限责任公司按照股东的出资比例分配，股份有限公司按照股东持有的股份比例分配；但是根据PE/VC投融资实践中惯常的投资人优先清算权条款，对于该等清算后的剩余财产，股东之间通常会约定不按照持股比例分配，而是由投资人先于原股东取得其优先清偿额部分（Liquidation Preference Amount），然后如还有剩余的，各股东再按持股比例分配（Participation Right）。
那么该等投资人优先清算权条款是否违反了《公司法》第186条的规定呢？对于这个问题，由于相关的司法判例尚属罕见，所以法律实务工作者对于这个问题的回答往往都会附带一些“限定性语言”。