Der BGH festigt und erweitert seine Rechtsprechung zum Kleinbeteiligtenprivileg im Kontext der insolvenzrechtlichen Anfechtung nach § 135 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 InsO.

前言

众所周知，近年来全球经济形势在新冠疫情的阴影下日趋严峻，各行各业均受到了不同程度的负面影响。这种影响传导至PE/VC行业，就演变成“退出难” 问题。被投企业无法上市、业绩低迷、没人接盘……不得已，投资机构们开始打起了“清算”的主意，趁着投资本金还没亏完，能捞回来一点是一点。于是，机构们纷纷向被投企业主张“优先清算权”。关于优先清算权的法律效力，此前的主流观点曾认为《公司法》第186条第二款并不允许有限责任公司自由约定清算剩余财产分配事项，但随着《民法典》的立法进程以及颁布、实施，近年来的司法判例却大多认为《公司法》第186条第二款并非效力性强制性规定，因而支持优先清算权的法律效力。本文拟对几个典型判例进行介绍，以此给PE/VC行业人士提供有益参考。

如系争投资协议项下的“优先清算权”条款约定目标公司在分别支付法定的优于股东之间分配的款项后，部分股东优先于其他股东取得优先分配的，则该股 东内部对于分配顺序进行的约定并不违反《公司法》规定。

案例1

林宇与北京北科创新投资中心（有限合伙）股权转让纠纷案

【(2019)京03民终6335号】

基本事实

The Court of Appeal has upheld the High Court decision of Mr Justice Fancourt in Denaxe Limited v Cooper & Anor [2022] EWHC 764 (Ch) striking out a substantial damages claim brought against court appointed receivers concerning the 2019 sale of Blackpool Football Club.

Summary of Purdue Pharma, L.P. v, City of Grand Prairie (In re Purdue Pharma, L.P.), No. 22–110 – Bk (2d Cir. May 30, 2023)

In vielen Branchen kann die Lieferkette eine Vielzahl von Unternehmen und Jurisdiktionen umfassen. Im derzeitigen Wirtschaftsklima ist es nicht ungewöhnlich, dass einzelne Lieferanten innerhalb dieser Lieferkette in finanzielle   Schwierigkeiten   geraten   oder ein Insolvenzverfahren beantragen.

过去三年中，受新冠疫情影响，大量企业面临无法清偿到期债务、资不抵债或者明显缺乏清偿能力的困境，法院受理破产清算案件的数量直线上升。最近，笔者也作为破产管理人的一员参与了一起有限合伙企业的破产清算案件，引发了笔者对于有限合伙企业及其普通合伙人共同承担合伙企业债务过程中破产的先后顺序的思考。本篇文章仅浅论普通合伙人因承担有限合伙企业对外债务的连带责任而被申请破产的情形，其因自身债务而进入破产清算程序的情况暂且不论。

• 案情简介

公司A为有限合伙企业B的唯一普通合伙人，现有B的债权人C要求A对B的对外债务承担连带责任，但A无力偿还，故C向法院申请对A进行破产清算，法院裁定受理并指定笔者所在单位作为A的破产管理人，而笔者在履行管理人职务的过程中，发现C并没有同步申请B破产，且B对外存在或有应收账款，如能悉数收回，且足以偿还对C的债务，则A可以免于被申请破产清算。此外，如A被宣告破产，则B也须及时推选或委任新的普通合伙人，否则B将因仅剩有限合伙人而陷入需要解散的境地。

在此情形下，C仅向法院申请对A进行破产清算是否合理引起了笔者的疑问。

In many industries, the supply chain can involve multiple suppliers and jurisdictions. In the current economic climate, it is not unusual for a supplier within the supply chain to encounter financial distress or even to enter into formal insolvency proceedings. This can have a significant impact on a company if its business depends on a distressed supplier and an alternative or additional supplier cannot be found (and production cannot be brought in house) or an alternative sourcing is not possible for other reasons, like part/raw material approval process, testing, customs etc.

On average, the Supreme Court hears a single bankruptcy case each term. But during the October 2022 term, the Supreme Court issued a remarkable four decisions in bankruptcy cases. These decisions, which are summarized below, address appellate issues relating to sale orders, the discharge of claims obtained by fraud, and sovereign immunity issues in two different contexts.

I. Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code is not a jurisdictional provision that precludes appellate review of asset sale orders.

The Supreme Court has, in a recent decision, sought to narrow the discretion that may be exercised by National Company Law Tribunals in evaluating a financial creditor's insolvency application. The Supreme Court has held that once such a financial creditor has been able to establish debt and default, the tribunal is left with hardly any discretion but to admit such an application. This update examines the impact of the judgment against the backdrop of the Supreme Court's earlier decision in Vidarbha Industries v Axis Bank Limited.

Introduction

In a recent case involving PT Garuda, the national airline of Indonesia, the New South Wales Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by two creditors seeking to wind-up the airline, concluding that PT Garuda enjoyed immunity under the Foreign States Immunities Act 1985 (Cth).

Key takeaways