引言
近年来，伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化，融资租赁成为了争议高发领域，并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例，根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》，在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中，融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三，同比上升65.93%，争议标的金额则位居第二，仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中，对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]
本篇中，我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验，从程序及实体两个角度，分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称“《民法典》”）生效前的存量项目中，出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中，我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭，进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。
一、 “困局”：租赁物被承租人擅自处分，出租人的物权保障岌岌可危
Background
With COVID-19 causing ever increasing financial uncertainty around the globe, we thought it an apt time to provide you with a summary of the various corporate insolvency procedures in the UK applicable to companies facing financial difficulties. Taking each in turn, we will discuss administration, administrative receivership, company voluntary arrangements, schemes of arrangement and liquidation. We will also touch briefly on directors’ duties, rules relating to asset distribution on insolvency and transactions that may be set aside on insolvency or ‘reviewable’ transactions.
在与向英国供货的国际公司合作的过程中，我们发现了一些常见问题。在前几篇文章中，我们阐释了英国客户遭遇财务困难时会发生的情况以及破产执业者的权力。在“五行”系列最后一篇文章中，我们以“土”元素为主题，探讨获得破产客户付款的方法，正常完成交易中的供货和付款从而恢复供应商的业务平衡。
土：如何确保供应商在客户破产的情况下避免损失并使自己处于最佳境地，以及如何在此种情况下获得付款
如果没有所有权保留条款(或合同中的任何其他保护条款——见本系列篇目一，破产公司的债权人有如下选择。
1. 债权人应在破产程序中提交债权证明，并提供销售合同、交付凭证和未付款账单等证据。除了提交债权证明，在破产管理和清算程序中，债权人通常被禁止对公司提起诉讼。
2. 如果当前破产公司的董事订立低价交易以欺诈债权人(例如将资产置于债权人的控制范围之外)，受到该交易侵害的人可向法院申请许可对交易提出异议。
3. 如果公司的董事或高管作出任何关于公司对供应商有偿付能力的陈述，供应商依据该陈述继续与客户进行交易，而该董事知道或应当知道该陈述不实，在这种情况下，该董事个人可能须为这一不实陈述承担责任（又称欺诈侵权）。当然，这只有在董事拥有足够的个人资产来偿还债务的情况下才有用。
Administration and deeds of company arrangement have continued to have significant influence on major restructurings in the Australian market. In larger restructurings, administrations represent significant transactions where capital is deployed strategically to acquire businesses at significant discounts. A sound understanding of the procedures is key to private equity players for many reasons. Portfolio companies can be exposed to administrations where suppliers, customers or competitors experience financial difficulties.
The High Court of Australia in CGU Insurance Ltd v Blakeley & Ors [2016] HCA 2 unanimously confirmed that a third party can join a defendant’s insurer to a proceeding and seek a declaration of rights under the insurance agreement, provided that third party has a ‘real interest’ in the performance of the agreement and that there is practical utility in the court providing that declaration.
Insurers and insureds do not bear the risk of a contractor becoming insolvent when undertaking insured repair work. The insurer’s only obligation is to pay its appointed contractor and not any subcontractors engaged by that party.
Background
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。
A recent decision of the Federal Court has confirmed that a secured creditor who consents to employee creditors being paid out of the charged asset pool is entitled to be subrogated to the priority rights of those employee creditors.
1.1 Facts
Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (ANZ) was the only secured creditor of Akron Roads Pty Ltd (Akron), holding fixed and floating charges over all of Akron’s undertakings and assets. In 2010, liquidators were appointed to Akron.