CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited (in Liquidation in the Mainland of the People’s Republic of China) [2020] HKCFI 167 (date of judgement 13 January 2020)

This is the first case in which the Hong Kong Court granted a recognition order to administrators of a PRC company appointed by a PRC Court. The case also considered whether a garnishee order nisi should be made absolute if a foreign bankruptcy order is made after the service of the garnishee order nisi.

Background

Just in time for Chinese New Year, a Hong Kong court has taken a major step forward in the developing law on cross-border insolvency by recognising a mainland Chinese liquidation for the first time. InJoint and Several Liquidators of CEFC Shanghai International Group Ltd [2020] HKCFI 167, Mr Justice Harris granted recognition and assistance to mainland administrators in Hong Kong so they could perform their functions and protect assets held in Hong Kong from enforcement.

This article was first published in the Global Restructuring Review, 14 Jan 2020.

The Singapore Court may grant freezing injunctions in aid of foreign court proceedings, but the Court must have jurisdiction over the defendant, and a substantive claim must nevertheless be brought against the defendant in Singapore

In Bi Xiaoqiong v China Medical Technologies, Inc (in liquidation) and

another [2019] SGCA 50 (“China Medicalâ€), the Singapore Court of Appeal

(“CoAâ€) confirmed that the Singapore Court may grant freezing (or Mareva)

injunctions in support of foreign court proceedings. However, the Singapore

一、嵌套的本质：收益权的收益权

嵌套，根据资管新规第二十二条和第二十七条的表述，是指甲资管产品投资乙资管产品的份额。即通过一项资产所设立的产品成为了另外一个产品投资的对象，形成了产品之中还包含产品的现象。

资产端的嵌套的本质上是以收益权为中心的权利虚化与重叠。试看下述两例：

图一

（2016）最高法民终215号案（下称“215号案”，见图一）中，定向资管计划从某投资公司受让了私募债券的收益权，而某银行又从定向资管计划受让了该资管计划的收益权，即“私募债券收益权的收益权”。其中，“私募债券收益权”是在“私募债券”这一概念中分离和抽象出来的虚化标的，“私募债券收益权的收益权”则是在“私募债券收益权”基础上进一步抽象出来的虚化标的，构成 “二重虚化的合同标的”。该案中的多层嵌套结构，如我们之前在《“收益权”创制问题的旧题新解》中分析，本质上就是以高度重合的标的进行的叠加式融资交易。

图二

美国是世界上最容易开展业务的司法管辖区之一1。监管壁垒总体较低，建立分支机构或业务实体方 便快捷，相比其他多数发达经济体，劳动就业法律对雇主更为友好，并且法律体系发达、透明。然 而，在美国进行投资或设立业务之前，仍有若干准入壁垒及营商挑战需要考虑。 本刊将简要介绍可能限制非美国人进入美国市场或在美国设立业务后开展业务能力的贸易管制问题， 以及对外国投资者而言极其重要的公司、商事、劳动就业、移民、知识产权、反洗钱、反垄断、出 口管制、反腐败、责任、破产等法律及实践。本刊并非综合性指南，仅对投资者需要考虑及与法律 顾问商讨的一些重要问题加以概述。 

公司资本充足是指股东实缴的出资与公司的经营规模相适应，以确保公司有充足的资本应对经营风险、偿付到期债务，与之相匹配的法律规范就是公司资本充足制度。近年来，随着市场经济的发展，立法机关改变了法定资本制的立场，在司法实践中，公司资本充足制度也呈现出渐见宽松的趋势。

一、《公司法》多次修改公司资本制度，大幅放宽了资本管制

1993年12月颁行的《公司法》采取了严格的法定资本制度。

2005年10月修订的《公司法》在保持法定资本制度的同时，降低了设立公司的资本门槛，将严格的法定资本制度修改为法定资本分期缴纳的资本制度。

2013年12月修正的《公司法》大幅修改了公司资本制度，将实缴登记制改为认缴登记制（特殊行业除外），取消了注册资本的最低限额、分期认缴期限、首付出资比例及出资财产形式的限制等规定，改由股东在公司章程中自行约定，基本完成从法定资本制到授权资本制的转变。

2018年10月修改的《公司法》增加了允许上市公司回购本公司股份的情形，并实际上赋予上市公司回购股份的自主决定权（“上市公司为维护公司价值及股东权益所必需”），还简化了股份回购的决策程序，提高了公司持有本公司股份的数额上限，延长了公司持有所回购股份的期限。

In But Ka Chon v Interactive Brokers LLC [2019] HKCA 873, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal to set aside a statutory demand arising out of online forex futures trading debts.

As the number of enterprise groups in China has increased, the phenomenon of affiliates jointly going into bankruptcy has also become more common. Once a member of an enterprise group enters a bankruptcy procedure, whether its affiliates will also simultaneously enter the procedure with it has consistently been an issue of concern to creditors.

The number of substantive consolidation bankruptcy cases of affiliated enterprises in mainland China has gradually increased since 2014. Substantive consolidation bankruptcy means disregarding the independent corporate personality of all affiliated members and treating them as the same enterprise in bankruptcy treatment, so as to pay off debts to creditors in a fair manner, regarding an affiliated enterprise bankruptcy case with significant corporate personality confusion.