前言

美国时间3月10日，加州金融保护与创新部宣布关闭美国硅谷银行（SVB），由联邦存款保险公司接管硅谷银行，原因是流动性不足和资不抵债。值得注意的是，硅谷银行作为服务于美国甚至全球创投圈的专业性银行，其关闭和破产犹如一块巨石在创投圈砸出了巨大的水花，并且波及整个水面。美国著名创投公司Y Combinator CEO将硅谷银行破产事件称为“初创公司的灭绝性事件”。

据相关媒体报道，位于北京的一家创投基金负责人向记者表示，受硅谷银行事件牵连，国内个别创投机构在硅谷银行仍有存款或者其他相关业务，正忙着处理资金问题。从私募基金的角度而言，我们不禁担忧：硅谷银行的此次破产事件是否可能影响由其托管的私募基金的财产安全呢？该事件对境内的私募基金又有哪些警示呢？对此，本文拟梳理境内私募基金托管法规和自律规则，并就相关风险提供专业建议。

一、私募基金托管“三问”

1、第一问：哪些类型的私募基金必须托管？

根据《私募投资基金监督管理暂行办法》¹、《私募投资基金备案须知》²等相关规定，目前四类私募基金必须或者原则上必须托管：

(1）契约型私募投资基金 

“Sophisticated financial titans engaged in a winner-take-all battle. There was a winner and a loser. Such an outcome was not only foreseeable, it is the only correct result. The risk of loss is a check on unrestrained behavior.”

Sometimes we blog about cases with unusual fact patterns. The cases don’t stand for any overriding legal principle. They might not have application beyond the parties to them. But they can make for good reading, giving insight into how judges analyze and rule on the issues at stake.

A recent decision in the District of Delaware is such a case. In re Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., No. 19-10603, 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 1557 (Bankr. D. Del. June 15, 2023).

On June 27, 2023, the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”) in the BlockFi Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization case filed an Objection to the company’s Plan and essentially requested that the company be liquidated. The Official Committee is made up largely of 600,000 individual customers of BlockFi.

Contrasting opinions from any court, issued a month apart, are always instructive.

And we have a new such thing—from the U.S. Supreme Court, no less, and from May and June of this year. The contrast is on this subject: whether sovereign immunities of Puerto Rico and of a federally recognized tribe are abrogated in bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy courts possess broad discretion to dismiss chapter 11 bankruptcy cases for “cause” under Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code. While the Bankruptcy Code enumerates a long (though non-exhaustive) list of instances when a case may clearly be dismissed for cause, courts generally agree that cases may also be dismissed under Section 1112(b) for the classic catch-all reason—if they are filed in “bad faith.”

In a decision likely to have a knock-on effect for future fraudulent transfer defense and valuation litigation, the Delaware bankruptcy court recently ruled that the price agreed in the sale of an oil and gas company closed by market participants represents the reasonably equivalent value for the assets being sold and is more reliable evidence of value than expert testimony prepared for the purposes of litigation.

Key Points

“Were Congress to . . . intervene and expand § 524(g) beyond asbestos cases, bankruptcy would become a more suitable alternative for resolving mass tort cases. Until then, such cases will likely remain problematic under the Code in the face of creditor opposition.”

When he was appointed by the Eleventh Circuit, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Peter D. Russin probably did not expect to have to decide who has rights to the Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok handles associated with social-media-forward energy-drink brands. But that is exactly what Judge Russin did in a recent opinion related to the bankruptcy of “Bang” energy drink’s manufacturer, Vital Pharmaceutical, Inc.