Summary
The Insolvency Service has released its report on CVAs (the “Report”), which was commissioned in response to the significant concerns raised by the commercial property sector in recent years and the legal challenges launched by landlords against a number of CVAs.
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
The company voluntary arrangement (CVA) is an insolvency process that has raised significant concern amongst commercial property owners in recent years about their use by tenant companies to change lease terms, write off arrears and recalculate future rental liabilities. Some property owners feel that they have been unfairly targeted by CVAs, particularly in the retail and casual dining sectors, to the benefit of other creditors.
Overview
Recently, in Shady Bird Lending, LLC v. The Source Hotel, LLC (In re The Source Hotel, LLC), Case No. 8:21-cv-00824-FLA (C.D. Ca. June 8, 2022), the Central District of California District Court adopted the majority view that a non-income producing property could be a “single asset real estate,” or SARE, debtor. The district court held that a hotel, which was not yet producing income, met the definition of a SARE.
Background
A prohibition order in place on a development in Hassall Street, Parramatta, NSW, serves as a useful reminder for developers, builders and financiers of the importance of complying with the requirements of the Design and Building Practitioners Act 2020 (NSW) (DBP Act) and the Residential Apartment Buildings (Compliance and Enforcement Powers) Act 2020 (NSW) (RAB Act) (together, the Acts) (and the consequences of non-compliance).
This case was an emergency interlocutory application by Mr Hennessy to prevent a receiver – Ken Tyrrell – and Everyday Finance DAC (the "Defendants") from taking possession, marketing and/or selling charged lands in County Laois (the "charged lands" or the "lands").
This question had until recent times been a conundrum of modern fixed charge receiverships (as well as receivers appointed under the Law of Property Act 1925), because in the scenario of the receiver seeking to step in and deal with property, the receiver is also said to be the borrower's deemed agent. It therefore begged a thorny question of the receiver, about how to reconcile being on both sides of the possession action.
There are significant differences in the procedures available to lenders north and south of the border when it comes to enforcing fixed charges or standard securities over real/heritable property. In this blog, we will compare the process in England & Wales ("E&W") of appointing a fixed charge or "LPA" receiver with the Scottish calling-up procedure
England & Wales: LPA receivers
Introduction
2016年破産倒産法については、導入以来、継続して改正が行われてきています。2018年倒産破産法(第2次修正)法(以下「2018年改正法」)により、不動産プロジェクトの割当者(以下「住宅購入者」)は、「金融債権者」の範囲に含まれ、不動産開発業者に対する破産手続を開始することができるようになりました。その後、当該2018年改正法については、Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Ltd. v. Union of Indiaにて最高裁で争われ、最終的に憲法上の有効性が認められました。
过去数年，打包重组（Repackaging）结构盛行，中资金融机构寻求使用其作为便利进入市场的工具，并为客户提供创新的融资方案。
中国房地产行业是最广泛使用该结构的行业之一，该行业在2021年高开低走、大起大跌，并于最后一季急挫。市场预期房地产行业在2022年仍将困难重重。
在此背景下，我们察觉到安排人（Arranger）、中国房地产企业及投资者正在寻求对现有的打包重组交易进行结构调整（restructure）的机会（包括提前终止、展期、增加额外增信措施、置换等安排）。此外，我们还观察到，市场对与中国非房地产行业主体（如融资租赁公司、金融科技公司）相关的资产支持交易的兴趣有所增加。
我们将于本文探讨部分有关修订或提前终止打包重组交易的主要问题，并且概述我们在市场中观察到的典型案例和未来趋势。
温故知新：打包重组交易的基本结构
许多较为简单的打包重组交易的结构一般具有下列特点：