在《商法》2022年11月刊首发。
医药BD（business development，商务拓展）项目通常指通过授权许可、投资、并购、合作开发/商业化等方式进行产品和技术的商业机会拓展。全球新冠疫情已逾三年，医药行业的市场环境和商业预期亦深受影响，导致医药BD项目面临不同程度的挑战。
折射到法律和履约层面，不可抗力、情势变更与市场变化等因素也逐渐变成医药企业内部会议或与合作伙伴商讨如何继续开展项目时高频出现的词汇。是继续“厮守”，还是友好“分手”，往往成为不可回避的话题。
一、妥善约定退出机制
协议是项目开展的基础，项目因各种原因难以为继而需要终止时，退出机制的设计就成为关键。通道不清、权责不明的终止或解除条款将导致企业退出困难，且通常伴随着高昂的时间与经济成本。
协议的终止/解除可分为法定终止/解除与意定终止/解除的两种情形。
在中国法下，常见法定终止情形包括不可抗力与情势变更，两种情形都具有不可预见性，在双方意见不一时，需由法院或仲裁机构决定适用。相对而言，意定终止基于双方事前合意，意见较易统一，可预见性更强。居安思危，事前规划退出机制，明确双方对于合作终止情形的预期，也是对项目负责的表现。
The High Court of Australia in Metal Manufactures Pty Limited v Morton [2023] HCA 1 has confirmed the view of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia that the "set off" defence under section 553C of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (Act) is no longer available to claims by liquidators for an unfair preference claim made under section 588FA of the Act.
This decision brings finality to claims brought by Creditor Defendants to such claims and no doubt brings much joy to liquidators across Australia.
Executive Summary:
The High Court has handed down its long-awaited decisions in Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] (Badenoch) HCA 2 and Metal Manufactures Pty Ltd v Morton [2023] HCA 1 (Morton) providing guidance on common defences to unfair preference claims that may be brought by liquidators. The key takeaways for insolvency practitioners are:
中伦观点
引言
在执行案件中，多个债权人争夺同一被执行人财产的情形并不罕见。在“僧多粥少”的情况下，债权人能否分配到财产以及能分配到多少财产往往取决于债权人是否采取了恰当的措施。由于执行相关法律法规较为繁杂，为了更好地阐述法律观点，本文我们将通过一个真实案件改编的模拟案例对执行程序中财产分配涉及实务问题逐一展开分析。
模拟案例引入
2018年，甲公司向乙公司出借2亿元用于经营，双方签订《抵押合同》约定乙公司将其名下A和B两处不动产抵押给甲公司，抵押范围包括乙公司欠甲公司的借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用。双方办理了抵押登记。因种种原因，两处不动产的登记簿登记显示抵押的债权数额分别为1000万元。后因乙公司无法到期偿还借款，甲公司向Y市法院起诉要求乙公司返回借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用并同时申请查分了乙公司名下C、D和E三处不动产。Y市法院判决乙公司偿还上述所有款项。
Co-author: Ben Gibson, Barrister, Victorian Bar
Case Name:Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 2
Issues: Voidable transactions and unfair preferences: abolition of the peak indebtedness rule, the existence of a continuing business relationship.
The abolition of the peak indebtedness rule will likely reduce the quantum of unfair preference claims where there is a running account and render some claims unviable for further pursuit.
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission unveiled a draft directive (2022/0408 (COD)) (the “Directive”) proposing to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency laws across the European Union[1].
Recent consideration of statutory insolvent trading duties by appellate courts provides fresh guidance for managing these risks. Three decisions stand out: two recent, one anticipated. Collectively, they provide (or will provide) a critical roadmap for directors operating businesses in precarious financial positions.
The appetiser: Debut Homes
The recent decision by the US Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re LTL Management, LLC did not address or negate the viability of divisive mergers of entities under the Texas Business Organizations Code (the “TBOC”). Various news articles concerning the decision have reported that the court disapproved of the so-called “Texas Two-Step” transactions undertaken by Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) in the face of its mounting talc tort litigation.