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.
This article was first published in the Global Restructuring Review, 14 Jan 2020.
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”。
In recent years, with the large increase in the number of enterprise bankruptcy cases, the instances of the legal representative or directors, supervisors and/or senior executives of a bankrupt enterprise (collectively, “senior officers”) being sued by the administrator or creditors have become common. In light of such laws as the Company Law, the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, etc., and typical cases in judicial practice, such senior officers chiefly face the following risks:
Da Yu Financial Holdings Limited (formerly known as China Agrotech Holdings Limited) (in liquidation) [2019] HKCFI 2531 (date of judgment 17 October 2019)
一、嵌套的本质：收益权的收益权
嵌套，根据资管新规第二十二条和第二十七条的表述，是指甲资管产品投资乙资管产品的份额。即通过一项资产所设立的产品成为了另外一个产品投资的对象，形成了产品之中还包含产品的现象。
资产端的嵌套的本质上是以收益权为中心的权利虚化与重叠。试看下述两例：
图一
（2016）最高法民终215号案（下称“215号案”，见图一）中，定向资管计划从某投资公司受让了私募债券的收益权，而某银行又从定向资管计划受让了该资管计划的收益权，即“私募债券收益权的收益权”。其中，“私募债券收益权”是在“私募债券”这一概念中分离和抽象出来的虚化标的，“私募债券收益权的收益权”则是在“私募债券收益权”基础上进一步抽象出来的虚化标的，构成 “二重虚化的合同标的”。该案中的多层嵌套结构，如我们之前在《“收益权”创制问题的旧题新解》中分析，本质上就是以高度重合的标的进行的叠加式融资交易。
图二