On December 29, 2008, the State Administration for Taxation (SAT) and the Ministry of Finance (MOF) jointly promulgated the Circular on Several Deed Tax Policies Concerning Enterprise Reorganization and Restructuring, (Cai Shui (2008) 175, Circular 175). Circular 175 took effect on January 1, 2009, and will be effective through December 31, 2011.  

New tax rules relating to the tax treatment of certain corporate restructuring transactions are expected to be finalized soon by the PRC Ministry of Finance (“MOF”) and the State Administration of Taxation (“SAT”).

Many multinational corporations ("MNCs") are either restructuring or actively considering restructuring their China operations, given the current economic conditions and forecasts. Restructuring efforts often include consolidating legal entities, business units, and operations; closing down operations and factories; and workforce reductions. Implementing such restructuring efforts often raises complicated legal issues, many of which require careful analysis in light of recent legislation and policy considerations.

Consolidating Operations

Throughout the global economic meltdown, the number of bankruptcy cases in China has risen considerably. To shed light on bankruptcy proceedings and stabilize the domestic economy, the Supreme People’s Court of the PRC issued Opinions on Several Issues Regarding the Proper Adjudication of Enterprise Bankruptcy Cases to Provide a Judicial Safeguard for Maintaining Order in the Market Economy on June 12, 2009. The Opinions direct courts at all levels to properly apply the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (EBL) to assist insolvent enterprises, maintain market order, and stabilize the economy.

The pilot measure for mutual recognition and assistance of insolvency proceedings between the courts of three pilot areas in Mainland China and Hong Kong was agreed in mid-2021, which is known as the Cooperation Mechanism.

Since then, liquidators in Hong Kong have had a more certain and structured route to seek, through Hong Kong Court, recognition and assistance from the designated Mainland courts in the three pilot areas including Shanghai, Shenzhen and Xiamen.

Key Takeaways

On August 17, 2023, China Evergrande Group, one of China’s largest real estate developers, and its affiliates filed chapter 15 petitions in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York in Manhattan seeking recognition of foreign restructuring proceedings in the High Court of Hong Kong and in the High Court of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court in the British Virgin Islands.

Two recent cases, Re Guangdong Overseas Construction Corporation [2023] HKCFI 1340 (the “GOCC Case“) and Re Trinity International Brands Limited [2023] HKCFI 1581 (the “Trinity Case“), reaffirm

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 

一只基金在经历“募、投、管、退”几个阶段后，会进入其生命周期的最后一个阶段：清盘和解散，这个阶段涉及对于基金的资产的盘点、处置、分配以及一些法定的清盘和解散程序的履行。虽然在清盘阶段，需要盘点资产、处置及分配，但其实很多基金在运营过程中已经根据其合伙协议下的瀑布式分配条款向投资人完成了绝大多数分配（如下图所示），清盘很多时候仅成为一个注销基金的程序性必经环节而已。

点击可查看大图

有时候由于跨境重组中精简结构或者其他商业上的考虑，一些PE基金的主体也需要清盘和注销。无论是由于期限到期清盘，还是由于重组而清盘，大多数开曼PE基金会采用自愿清盘（voluntary liquidation）的方式退出，因此我们在本文中会重点介绍开曼法下豁免有限合伙的自愿清盘，也会对开曼法下的剔除（strike-off）程序在豁免有限合伙场景下的应用进行简单介绍。

引言

在投融资实践中，一方面，部分掌握核心技术/知识产权（“IP”）的产业投资人、科研院所等出资人（“IP出资人”）在投资时，希望通过IP出资减轻自身的现金出资负担并增强目标公司的核心竞争力，实现共赢。如果出资标的是IP出资人的核心IP，IP出资人往往希望以IP使用权而非IP所有权作为出资，以保护自身利益。另一方面，相较于常见的现金出资，目标公司对IP使用权出资的了解更少，也存在些许疑问。

实践中，IP使用权出资是IP出资人和目标公司/创始人经常向我们咨询的“老话题”。IP使用权出资需要考虑诸多问题和潜在风险，我们在此进行简单介绍，希望为IP出资人和目标公司/创始人提供一些指引。

第一部分 结论