本文拟以某案例为切入点,揭示及探讨政府和社会资本合作(Public-Private Partnership,下称PPP)项目中社会资本方因项目合同主体问题而面临的潜在风险及可能的风险防范措施。
1. 案例情况简述
项目投资人A公司(外国公司)与B政府签订某项目投资框架协议,约定由A公司设立项目公司C以负责建设、运营某污水处理厂特许经营项目,并在对项目建设时间、技术要求、费用确认机制等关键条件做出约定的同时,明确“详细条款在正式合同中约定”。
随后,B政府作为甲方与A公司作为乙方签订PPP项目合同,约定项目按照合同要求建设并投入运营后,由B政府承担向乙方支付污水处理费的义务(最终用户向B政府付费),并且“当项目公司成立后,乙方在本协议项下的所有权利和义务自动转让给项目公司”。
根据前述协议,A公司设立由其100%控股的项目公司C,由C公司承继PPP项目合同中与建设、运营项目相关的所有权利义务。C公司主要通过向当地银行贷款的方式进行项目融资,以完成项目建设并将污水处理厂投入运营。
簡介
最近在Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388一案中,原告人提出申索,要求被告人交代帳目。被告人以有關訴訟沒有在《時效條例》(香港法例第347章)第20(2) 條訂明的六年訴訟時效內提出為由,申請剔除原告人的申索,但被原訟法庭(「法院」)駁回。
背景
Trinity Concept Ltd(「原告人」)是一間正在清盤的公司,它控告其兩名前董事(「被告人」)違反受信責任,向第三方作出合共139筆付款而沒有妥當解釋(「可疑交易」)。原告人請求法院頒令被告人交代帳目,並在製備帳目後交出結欠的資產或付款,或命令被告人作出衡平法補償。被告人認為可疑交易距離令狀發出已超過六年,因此本案已喪失訴訟時效,應根據《時效條例》第4(2) 條予以駁回。
裁決
法院指出下列與剔除申請有關的重要問題:
The General Assembly of the Civil Chambers of Turkish Court of Cassation (“Court”) rendered a controversial decision on 21 December 2021 with No. K.2021/1710 (“Decision”).
Lupatech Group filed for its judicial reorganization in Brazil on May 25, 2015, before the 1st Bankruptcy Court of São Paulo/SP , and commenced its judicial reorganization proceeding on June 22nd , 2015, a time when the Brazilian Bankruptcy Law (“BBL”) had not yet adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
Introduction
Through the EU Directive on Restructuring and Insolvency of 20 June 2019 (EUR 2019/1023, “Directive“), the European Union has imposed an obligation on its member states to offer a more attractive and flexible restructuring scheme in their respective local law. The initial deadline to do so had been 17 July 2021. Only a handful of countries (most notably Germany and The Netherlands) had implemented the Directive within the initial deadline, whilst the other countries made use of the possibility to ask for a one year extension.
Ruairi Rynn and Leanne Ennis, William Fry
This is an extract from the 2022 edition of GRR's Europe, Middle East and Africa Restructuring Review. The whole publication is available here.
In summary
To promote the finality and binding effect of confirmed chapter 11 plans, the Bankruptcy Code categorically prohibits any modification of a confirmed plan after it has been "substantially consummated." Stakeholders, however, sometimes attempt to skirt this prohibition by characterizing proposed changes to a substantially consummated chapter 11 plan as some other form of relief, such as modification of the confirmation order or a plan document, or reconsideration of the allowed amount of a claim. The U.S.
The High Court (Mr Justice Trower) today gave its judgment sanctioning Amigo’s ‘New Business Scheme’. A team of us at Freshfields were pleased to help Amigo with this. Here we outline the technical innovations that, despite significant legal and regulatory uncertainty, delivered the best available outcome for Amigo’s redress creditors and the prospect of Amigo lending again for the benefit of those creditors and future customers. We also identify two approaches that addressed the practical challenge of implementing a complex legal process with retail creditors.
In MNP Ltd. v. Canada Revenue Agency (MNP v CRA), the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (“ABQB”) clarified the effect of bankruptcy on a writ of enforcement’s “binding interest” acquired on registration against a debtor’s land, ultimately holding that whatever priority a writ’s binding interest has before bankruptcy, it is undercut by the debtor’s bankruptcy. In so doing, the ABQB reaffirmed the validity of a “priority flip” between secured creditors and unsecured judgment creditors upon a debtor’s bankruptcy.
Background
Introduction
In the recent case of Trinity Concept Ltd (In Liq) v Wong Kung Sang (黃共生) [2022] 1 HKLRD 1388, the Court of First Instance (“Court”) dismissed the defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account on the ground that the action was not commenced within the six-year limitation period under section 20(2) of the Limitation Ordinance (Cap. 347 of the Laws of Hong Kong) (“LO”).
Background