In this week’s update: The court finds that selfdealing by a director and a share buyback were void, the PERG report on compliance with the Walker Guidelines, the BVCA and EY review private equity portfolio company performance, the QCA reports on AIM company corporate governance and a few other items.
Court confirms self-dealing by director was void
Latham & Watkins operates worldwide as a limited liability partnership organized under the laws of the State of Delaware (USA) with affiliated limited liability partnerships conducting the practice in France, Hong Kong, Italy, Singapore, and the United Kingdom and as an affiliated partnership conducting the practice in Japan. Latham & Watkins operates in South Korea as a Foreign Legal Consultant Office. Latham & Watkins works in cooperation with the Law Office of Salman M. Al-Sudairi in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Persisting political and economic uncertainty means awareness of market changes remains crucial.
The 2008 distress cycle triggered defaults and restructurings for European PE portfolio companies, as maintenance covenant defaults and balance sheet deleveraging forced refinancings and debt-for-equity swaps. While restructuring conditions for PE firms are stronger in 2019 than they were in 2008, persisting political and economic uncertainty means that awareness of market developments remains important.
With cov-lite financings at record highs, debt holders will need to be proactive in maximising recoveries
Will the last person leaving please turn out the lites?
Cov-lite loans can leave lenders with limited restructuring options, but creative lenders will still find ways to bring debtors to the table, partners Ian Wallace and Christian Pilkington of global law firm White & Case LLP explain
When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.
Introduction
On 8 March 20111, the French Supreme Court issued an important decision for the restructuring, finance and private equity communities and their advisers in connection with the on-going litigation surrounding the Coeur Défense restructuring.
Christopher Harlowe and Christopher Levers, Mourant
This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Pre-Pack. The whole publication is available here.
The Cayman Islands has established itself as the jurisdiction of choice for financially sophisticated businesses such as hedge funds, private equity funds, special purpose vehicles and trusts that use offshore vehicles.
优先清算权条款是境外风险投资项目的常见条款，随后逐渐在国内私募股权投资文件中采用。很多投资人关心，这一舶来品能否获得中国司法机关的认可，我们简要分析如下：
一、什么是优先清算权
优先清算权，是指公司清算时，部分股东优先于其他股东获得剩余财产分配的权利；或者，在约定的“视同清算事件”发生时，部分股东优先于其他股东从公司获得收益的权利，“视同清算事件”通常包括公司合并、被并购、出售控股股权、出售主要资产等事件。
在私募股权投资项目中，投资人为保障其自身权益采用优先清算权条款，目的是：在公司经营不善遭遇清算时，投资人可以优先拿回一些补偿；在投资人无法通过公司上市退出，发生公司被并购等“视同清算事件”发生时，其能够优先收回其投资成本和一定程度的投资回报，实现资产变现。该条款可谓投资人的“分钱利器”。
二、如何看待该条款效力
《公司法》第34条明确规定股东可以自由约定“利润分配”的比例。该条规定：“股东按照实缴的出资比例分取红利；公司新增资本时，股东有权优先按照实缴的出资比例认缴出资。但是，全体股东约定不按照出资比例分取红利或者不按照出资比例优先认缴出资的除外。”
一、前言
众所周知，如从事《外商投资产业指导目录》项下限制或禁止外商投资业务的境内公司拟于境外上市，其无法完全采用股权架构的方式搭建上市架构，而需采用通过合约安排对其境内运营实体（以下简称“OPCO公司”）进行协议控制的架构（以下简称“VIE架构”）完成境外拟上市公司与OPCO公司的链接。
根据香港联合交易所有限公司（以下简称“联交所”）现行有效的关于VIE架构的上市规定（即联交所于2004年5月23日首次刊发的《有关上市发行人业务使用合约安排的指引》（HKEx-GL77-14，以下简称《VIE指引》）（于2018年4月最新修订）与2005年第一季度刊发的关于合约安排的上市决策（HKEX-LD43-3，以下简称《VIE上市决策》）（于2018年4月最新修订），采用VIE架构的上市申请人应当适用“严格限定”原则（即通常所说“narrowly tailored”规则）。
但根据我们的项目经验以及案例研究，我们注意到联交所上市规定项下“严格限定”原则似乎尚存在一定灵活适用的空间。本文拟对于《VIE指引》及《VIE上市决策》项下“严格限定”原则及其实践情况进行简要分析，以期为相关读者了解如何适用“严格限定”原则提供参考。