ARTICLES
專業(yè)文章
淺析跨境并購交易中非融資性擔保方式面臨的實踐風險分析
?
伴隨著經(jīng)濟全球化的不斷深入，國際資本已成為滾滾潮流波及到世界各個角落和各個行業(yè)。企業(yè)間并購已成為眾多跨國公司實現(xiàn)經(jīng)營戰(zhàn)略目標以及協(xié)同效應的主要手段之一。在跨境并購交易中，尤其是外國投資者并購境內(nèi)企業(yè)或中國企業(yè)"走出去"進行境外投資的交易，跨境擔保是較為常見的安排。從擔保的主債務類別來看，跨境擔保[1]模式可以分為融資性擔保和非融資性擔保。融資性擔保顧名思義主要針對收購方以其資產(chǎn)作為擔保財產(chǎn)而獲取融資；非融資性擔保則常用于為保障并購各方利益所做出的履約擔保安排。其中，融資性擔保已為企業(yè)和銀行較為廣泛地使用，有關(guān)融資性跨境擔保所涉及的中國外匯監(jiān)管問題及風險點已有諸多深度分析，但是對于非融資性擔保則討論較少。實踐中，非融資性擔保模式在不同交易結(jié)構(gòu)下具有多樣性、靈活性等特點，但同時也因受制于中國外匯監(jiān)管措施，面臨諸多實踐困境，值得關(guān)注和討論。本文將著重對不同跨境并購交易結(jié)構(gòu)下使用非融資性擔?？赡苊媾R的實踐困境及風險進行分析。
With the deepening of economic globalization, international capital has flown into every part of the world and all kinds of industry sectors. Merger and acquisition ("M&A") among enterprises has become one of the major tools for multinational companies to achieve strategic goals and synergies. Cross-border guarantee is commonly seen in those cross-border merger and acquisition transactions, especially foreign investor’s acquisition of PRC company and PRC company’s foreign investment. Based on the principal debt secured by the guarantee, cross-border guarantees[1] can be categorized into financing guarantee and non-financing guarantee. Financing guarantee, by its name, refers to the acquirer’s access to financing by offering guarantee of its assets; non-financing guarantee is often seen as performance guarantee in protection of the rights and interests of the parties to the transaction. Financing guarantee has been widely used by banks and enterprises and there has been much in-depth analysis on PRC foreign exchange control issues and risks associated therewith. Yet on the other hand, there have been very few discussions about non-financing guarantee in cross-border M&A transactions. In practice, non-financing guarantee can take different forms and be quite flexible under different transaction structures, yet it is still subject to the PRC foreign exchange control, and thus encounters many practical challenges, which deserves attention and analysis. This article, by focusing on non-financing guarantee, will briefly introduce the practical challenges faced by non-financing guarantee under different cross-border M&A transaction structures and the risk analysis thereof.
?
一、跨境并購交易中為何需要非融資性擔保
Why Do We Need Non-financing Guarantee in Cross-border M&A Transactions
跨境并購交易具有交易結(jié)構(gòu)復雜、交易金額高、付款結(jié)構(gòu)多樣性、交割條件繁雜等特點。因此，除了常見的融資性擔保外，非融資性擔?？梢詾榇_保收購協(xié)議履約提供廣泛的擔保安排，以保障并購交易各方的利益。
Cross-border M&A transaction is featured with complicated transaction structure, high transaction value, various payment arrangement and complex closing conditions. Therefore, apart from the commonly used financing guarantee, non-financing guarantee can provide more extensive guarantee for the performance of the purchase agreement so as to protect the rights and interests of the parties to the transaction.
?
首先，跨境并購交易一般涉及復雜的交易結(jié)構(gòu)安排，并購雙方出于各種稅務及商業(yè)目的的考量往往會設(shè)計多層交易架構(gòu)，而實際簽約方主體可能只是并購雙方在海外新設(shè)立的子公司或特殊目的公司。在此類情形下，若對簽約主體資信能力及履約能力信心不足，則可要求簽約主體的關(guān)聯(lián)方（通常是該簽約主體直接或間接股東[2]）提供擔保，以保證履行其在收購協(xié)議項下的所有義務。
First of all, cross-border M&A transaction usually involves complicated transaction structures.? For various tax and commercial reasons, the parties often design a transaction structure with several layers of entities, and the contracting party could be merely a newly established offshore subsidiary or SPV of the parties. Under such circumstances, if there is low confidence on the contract performance capacity of such contracting entity, one may require an affiliate of the contracting entity (usually the direct or indirect shareholder of the contracting party[2]) to provide a guarantee for the performance of all the obligations under the purchase agreement.
?
其次，跨境并購交易涉及的交易金額往往非常高，且通常會設(shè)計分期付款安排。在此類情形下，出售方通常會要求收購方或其關(guān)聯(lián)方提供擔保以確保收購價款的全額支付。
Secondly, cross-border M&A transaction usually has extremely high transaction value, and thus is associated with installment payment arrangements. Under such circumstances, the seller will often require the acquirer or its affiliate to provide a guarantee for the full payment of the acquisition price.
?
另外，根據(jù)收購方對目標公司的盡職調(diào)查結(jié)果，跨境并購交易往往會設(shè)置繁雜的交割條件，整個交易從簽約到交割可能需要數(shù)月甚至更長的時間。對于出售方而言，某些收購協(xié)議下的義務需要一定時間才能履行完畢，如質(zhì)量保證責任、項目完工責任等。在此類情形下，為確保出售方充分履行其在收購協(xié)議下的這些義務，收購方也可能要求出售方或其關(guān)聯(lián)方提供擔保。
Moreover, based on the acquirer’s due diligence on the target company, cross-border M&A transaction is usually subject to complex closing conditions and the entire process from signing to closing could take months or even longer. For the seller, certain obligations under the purchase agreement may take time to fulfill, such as quality guarantee, project completion and etc. Under such circumstances, to ensure the seller’s full performance of such obligations under the purchase agreement, the acquirer may also require the seller or its affiliate to provide a guarantee.
?
二、跨境擔保分類
Types of Cross-border Guarantees
2014年，隨著《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》（匯發(fā)[2014]29號文）的出臺，所有涉及跨境資本流動的擔保被正式統(tǒng)稱為跨境擔保，并分為內(nèi)保外貸、外保內(nèi)貸和其它形式跨境擔保三個類別，并施以不同的管理要求。其中，內(nèi)保外貸是指擔保人注冊地在境內(nèi)、債務人和債權(quán)人注冊地均在境外的跨境擔保。外保內(nèi)貸是指擔保人注冊地在境外、債務人和債權(quán)人注冊地均在境內(nèi)的跨境擔保。其他形式跨境擔保是指除前述內(nèi)保外貸和外保內(nèi)貸以外的其他跨境擔保情形。所有跨境擔保的安排均需要在現(xiàn)有跨境擔保法律管理體系框架下進行。
The implementation of the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees (Huifa [2014] No. 29) in 2014 officially integrated all guarantees concerning cross-border capital flow as cross-border guarantees, and categorized them into "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee", "Onshore Debt under Offshore Guarantee" and other types of cross-border guarantee, which are subject to different regulatory requirements. Among these, "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" refers to the cross-border guarantee where the guarantor is incorporated in PRC, while the debtor and creditor are both incorporated offshore; "Onshore Debt under Offshore Guarantee" refers to cross-border guarantee where the guarantor is incorporated offshore, while both debtor and creditor are incorporated in PRC; other types of cross-border guarantee refer to those cross-border guarantees that are neither "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" nor "Onshore Debt under Offshore Guarantee". All cross-border guarantees must follow the existing legislation regime of cross-border guarantees.
?
三、現(xiàn)行法律體系下非融資性擔保所面臨的實踐風險
Practical Risks Faced by Non-financing Guarantees under the Existing Legislation Regime
一個典型的跨境并購交易中會涉及到眾多交易主體，根據(jù)交易主體注冊地的不同更是會進一步衍生出眾多的交易結(jié)構(gòu)。由于非融資性擔保本身不具有融資目的的特殊性，以及現(xiàn)行法律體系下對跨境擔保的登記途徑有限，在不同的交易結(jié)構(gòu)下，非融資性擔保在實踐中往往會遇到諸多風險，有些甚至于影響了該擔保方式的可行性。筆者根據(jù)自身的實務經(jīng)驗，將在下文對不同交易模式下非融資擔保所面臨的相關(guān)風險進行分析。
A typical cross-border M&A transaction usually concerns various transaction parties, and based on the places of incorporation of such parties, the transaction will derive into a variety of transaction structures. Due to the fact that the non-financing guarantee itself does not serve for financing purpose, and there are limited channels for cross-border guarantee registration under the existing legislation regime, non-financing guarantees usually face various risks in practice under different transaction structures, some of which even may affect the feasibility of the guarantee. The authors, based on hands-on practical experience, hereby analyze the practical risks faced by non-financing guarantees under different transaction structures.
?
1.收購方、出售方均在境外，擔保方在境內(nèi)（表1）- 準"內(nèi)保外貸"
Both Acquirer and Seller are Offshore; Guarantor is Onshore (Chart 1) – Quasi "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee"
?
風險系數(shù)/Risk Level：★★★☆☆
風險承擔方/Risk Bearer：境外出售方/Offshore Seller
風險點/Risks：
??外匯管理局對于是否認可收購協(xié)議作為內(nèi)保外貸主合同進行登記的態(tài)度不一；
Foreign exchange administration authorities’ views vary regarding whether the purchase agreement can be acknowledged as the principal agreement for "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" registration;
?
? 涉及債權(quán)人（即境外收購方）的實際控制人是中國境內(nèi)企業(yè)的需履行境外投資相關(guān)核準/備案手續(xù)；
In case the debtor (i.e. offshore acquirer)’s de facto controller is a PRC domestic company, outbound investment approval/filing is required;
?
??部分外匯管理局對于涉及房地產(chǎn)、酒店、影城、娛樂業(yè)、體育俱樂部等特殊行業(yè)的內(nèi)保外貸資金不予辦理登記；
Certain foreign exchange administration authorities do not accept registration for "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" in case it is related to real estate, hotel, cinema, entertainment, sports clubs and other special industries;
?
??發(fā)生擔保履約時，還需特別注意境內(nèi)擔保企業(yè)的境外放款額度。
Upon guarantee performance, the onshore guarantor shall pay special attention to its quota for offshore loan disbursement.
?
《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》第三條規(guī)定，"內(nèi)保外貸是指擔保人注冊在境內(nèi)、債務人和債權(quán)人注冊地均在境外的跨境擔保"。該模式符合內(nèi)保外貸的這一定義，但是與典型內(nèi)保外貸模式又有一定的區(qū)別，即該模式下只存在境內(nèi)擔保，而不存在境外的融資性協(xié)議（如貸款合同）。根據(jù)《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》的規(guī)定，如果是由境內(nèi)企業(yè)直接提供擔保，需在簽訂擔保合同后15個工作日內(nèi)，至外匯管理局辦理內(nèi)保外貸登記。如果由境內(nèi)銀行提供擔保，銀行需通過內(nèi)部數(shù)據(jù)接口程序向外匯管理局報送相關(guān)數(shù)據(jù)。
According to Article 3 of the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees, "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee shall refer to the cross-border guarantee where the guarantor is incorporated in PRC, while the debtor and creditor are both incorporated offshore."? This method of guarantee falls under the definition of "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee", while it is different from a typical "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee", i.e. under this method of guarantee, there only exists onshore guarantee, while there is no offshore financing agreement (such as loan agreement). According to the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees, if a domestic company directly provides a guarantee, it shall register such "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" with the foreign exchange administration authority within 15 working days upon the execution of the guarantee agreement. If a domestic bank provides the guarantee, the bank shall submit the relevant data to the foreign exchange administration authority through the internal data transmission portal.
?
盡管該模式的結(jié)構(gòu)非常常見，實踐中仍有以下幾點值得企業(yè)特別注意：
Though the structure under such guarantee is commonly seen, the following issues are worth noting in practice:
1)?在跨境并購交易中，此類跨境擔保所擔保的主合同一般為收購協(xié)議而非常見的融資性協(xié)議（如貸款協(xié)議）。實踐中，各地外管局對于此類跨境擔保能否辦理內(nèi)保外貸登記態(tài)度不一。根據(jù)筆者與多地外匯管理局的咨詢，部分地方外匯管理局認為內(nèi)保外貸登記的對象應該是"外貸"，即境外融資性協(xié)議，跨境并購合同等非融資性合同并不符合登記條件，從而不予登記。未經(jīng)內(nèi)保外貸登記，一旦發(fā)生擔保履約的情形，境內(nèi)擔保方的資金將無法匯出致使擔保安排的實質(zhì)目的無法達成。
In a cross-border M&A transaction, the principal contract under such cross-border guarantee is usually the purchase agreement, instead of commonly seen financing agreement (such as loan agreement). In practice, local foreign exchange administration authorities hold different views on the feasibility of "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" registration for such cross-border guarantee. Based on the authors’ inquiry with various local foreign exchange administration authorities, some of the local authorities deem that there shall be an offshore loan (i.e. offshore financing agreement) under the "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" and a cross-border M&A agreement, which is not a financing agreement, does not comply with the registration requirements. Therefore, they will not accept registration of such cross-border guarantee as "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee". Upon the performance of the guarantee, if not registered as "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee", the onshore guarantor will not be able to remit the fund offshore, and thus it will frustrate the substantial goal of the guarantee arrangement.
2) 外匯管理局或銀行在審核該類內(nèi)保外貸時，一般采用穿透原則，也即會穿透查明債務人（即境外收購方）的實際控制人是否是中國境內(nèi)企業(yè)。若為中國境內(nèi)企業(yè)的則會進而要求該中國境內(nèi)企業(yè)提供已履行境外投資相關(guān)核準/備案手續(xù)的文件。隨著《企業(yè)境外投資管理辦法》的正式發(fā)布，值得注意的是，新法項下對境外投資的定義范圍有所擴大，包括了境內(nèi)企業(yè)和其控制的境外企業(yè)，以投入資產(chǎn)、權(quán)益或提供融資、擔保等方式，獲得境外所有權(quán)、控制權(quán)、經(jīng)營管理權(quán)及其他權(quán)益的投資活動。根據(jù)筆者與多地外匯管理局的咨詢，對于涉及收購方實際控制人是中國境內(nèi)企業(yè)的內(nèi)保外貸，履行境外投資相關(guān)核準/備案手續(xù)是辦理內(nèi)保外貸登記的前提條件。因此，在涉及境外收購方的實際控制人是中國境內(nèi)企業(yè)的跨境并購交易中，應在交易文件中特別明確中國境內(nèi)企業(yè)需履行境外投資相關(guān)核準/備案手續(xù)的義務。
The foreign exchange authorities and the banks adopt the "piercing principle". When reviewing such "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee", i.e. the de facto controller of the debtor (i.e. the offshore acquirer) will be identified. In case the de facto controller of the offshore acquirer is a PRC domestic company, outbound investment approval/filing proof of such domestic company will be further required. With the official promulgation of Administrative Measures for the Outbound Investment of Enterprises, it is worth noting that the definition of outbound investment is expanded to include investment activities conducted by a domestic company, either directly or via an overseas enterprise under its control, through making investment with assets and equities or providing financing or a guarantee in order to obtain overseas ownership, control rights, business management rights and other related equities. Based on the authors’ inquiry with various local foreign exchange authorities, where an "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" involves an acquirer whose de facto controller is a PRC domestic company, outbound investment approval/filing is a pre-condition for registration of "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee". Therefore, in a cross-border M&A transaction where the de facto controller of the offshore acquirer is a PRC domestic company, it shall be expressly identified in the transaction documents that the PRC domestic company is obliged to perform the outbound investment approval/filing.
3)?行業(yè)因素在此模式下也是一個重要考量因素。根據(jù)《國家外匯管理局關(guān)于進一步推進外匯管理改革完善真實合規(guī)性審核的通知》政策問答（二）的解釋，內(nèi)保外貸項下資金如果用于房地產(chǎn)、酒店、影城、娛樂業(yè)、體育俱樂部等特殊行業(yè)的，外匯管理局或銀行會加強審核。盡管本文討論的模式項下并不涉及通過內(nèi)保外貸模式融資，但因為一旦發(fā)生擔保履約，也會導致資金外流，所以外匯管理局的操作會非常謹慎。根據(jù)筆者與多地外匯管理局的咨詢，不論是否涉及融資，只要該內(nèi)保外貸模式下涉及的企業(yè)與上述行業(yè)相關(guān)，基本很難受理。因此，若涉及上述行業(yè)的企業(yè)希望采用該種模式的，建議通過專業(yè)律師提前與當?shù)赝鈪R管理局溝通確認。
Industry sector is also one of the vital elements to consider under this method. According to the explanation under the Policy Q&A (II) for the Notice of the State Administration of Foreign Exchange on Further Advancing the Reform of Foreign Exchange Administration and Improving Examination of Authenticity and Compliance, in case the funds under the "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee" are used for real estate, hotel, cinema, entertainment, sports clubs or other special industries, foreign exchange administration authorities or banks will tighten their review procedures regarding these transactions.? Although the method under discussion herein does not concern financing through "Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee", yet the performance of the guarantee will lead to capital outflow, the foreign exchange administration authorities are very conservative regarding these industries. Based on the authors’ inquiry with various local foreign exchange administration authorities, when the above-mentioned industries are concerned, foreign exchange administration authorities are unlikely to accept the registration applications, regardless of whether any financing is concerned. Therefore, if a company falling under the above industries wishes to adopt this method, it is suggested to confirm the arrangement with the local foreign exchange authority in advance through professional lawyers.
4)?如果發(fā)生實際履約擔保的，境內(nèi)擔保企業(yè)將對境外出售方放款。根據(jù)《關(guān)于完善銀行內(nèi)保外貸外匯管理的通知》（匯綜發(fā)(2017)108號）的規(guī)定，首先，履約額需納入企業(yè)境外放款額度登記和管理。企業(yè)境外放款余額上限規(guī)定于《關(guān)于進一步明確境內(nèi)企業(yè)人民幣境外放款業(yè)務有關(guān)事項的通知》（銀發(fā)（2016）306號），為最近一期經(jīng)審計的所有者權(quán)益*宏觀審慎調(diào)節(jié)系數(shù)（0.3）。因此，境內(nèi)擔保企業(yè)在履約時應注意審查是否會超過自己的境外放款額度上限；其次，境內(nèi)擔保企業(yè)應在擔保履約之日起15個工作日內(nèi)到當?shù)赝鈪R局辦理對外債權(quán)登記。
In case of actual occurrence of guarantee performance, the offshore guarantor shall make outbound payment. According to the Notice on Improving Foreign Exchange Administration on the Offshore Debt under Onshore Guarantee of Banks (Hui Zong Fa (2017) No. 108), firstly, the amount of the guarantee performance shall be subject to registration and administration on the offshore loan disbursement quota, which is the latest audited owner's equity * coefficient for the macro-prudential regulation (0.3) according to the Notice on Further Clarifying Matters on Domestic Enterprises' Business of Granting Loans to Overseas Borrowers (Yin Fa (2016) No. 306). Therefore, in case of guarantee performance, the onshore guarantor shall check internally whether the amount to be paid will exceed the quota; secondly, the onshore guarantor shall complete the registration of the creditor rights against the offshore acquirer with foreign exchange administration authorities within 15 working days upon performance.
?
2.收購方、出售方均在境內(nèi)，擔保方在境外（表2）- 類"外保內(nèi)貸"
Both Acquirer and Seller are Onshore; Guarantor is Offshore (Chart 2) – Quasi "Onshore Debt under Offshore Guarantee"
?
風險系數(shù)/Risk Level：★★★★☆
風險承擔方/Risk Bearer：境內(nèi)出售方 (Onshore Seller)
風險點/Risks：
??不屬于要求登記的跨境擔保類型。擔保履約時可能會由于此類擔保未經(jīng)登記而面臨履約款項跨境支付受到外匯管制的棘手問題；
It does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee. The guarantee performance may face a practical issue of foreign exchange restrictions against the cross-border payments without cross-border guarantee registration;
?
??變通方案包括：(1) 通過訴訟或仲裁取得判決/裁決文書從而進行跨境支付；或 (2) 由境外擔保方先行將相應款項出借給境內(nèi)收購方，供境內(nèi)收購方履約。但此變通方案受限于境內(nèi)企業(yè)的經(jīng)營范圍和外債額度。
Alternatives include: (1) making cross-border payments by obtaining a judgment/award through court trial or arbitration; or (2) having the offshore guarantor lend the relevant fund to the onshore acquirer to perform its contractual obligations. Yet such alternative is subject to the business scope and foreign debt quota of the onshore company.
?
該模式從表面上看似乎是非常典型的"外保內(nèi)貸"結(jié)構(gòu)。但是，《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》第三章所規(guī)定的外保內(nèi)貸是指境內(nèi)非金融機構(gòu)從境內(nèi)金融機構(gòu)借用貸款或獲得授信額度，而這里的潛在"債權(quán)人"是境內(nèi)出售方，而不是金融機構(gòu)，因此不屬于需要或者可以登記的"外保內(nèi)貸"，因此也就無法做到根據(jù)《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》的要求通過銀行進行相關(guān)擔保數(shù)據(jù)的報送。
This method seems to be a typical "Onshore Debt under Offshore Guarantee" structure.? However, "Onshore Debt under Offshore Guarantee" provided under Chapter 3 of the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees refers the situation that the domestic non-financial institutions borrows funds or obtain credit quotas from the domestic financial institutions, while under this method, the potential "creditor" is the onshore seller, instead of a financial institution. Therefore, such method of guarantee cannot be categorized as "Onshore Debt under Offshore Guarantee" which is required to be registered or registrable.? Therefore, such cross-border guarantee cannot be reported via bank in accordance with the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees.
?
對于此類擔保方與債權(quán)人（即出售方）分屬境內(nèi)、境外的情形，在擔保履約時可能會由于此類擔保未經(jīng)登記而面臨履約款項跨境支付受到外匯管制的棘手問題。在實踐中，具有一定可行性的替代方案包括：
Under such circumstance that the guarantor and the creditor (i.e. the seller) are located cross border, the guarantee performance may face a practical issue of foreign exchange restrictions against the cross-border payments without cross-border guarantee registration. In practice, alternative solutions with certain feasibility include:
1) ?訴訟仲裁模式：由境內(nèi)出售方根據(jù)擔保合同在境內(nèi)起訴境外擔保企業(yè)，在取得勝訴的判決、裁判文書后，以勝訴文書為依據(jù)，向外管局申請跨境支付?？紤]到境外判決或裁判文書在實踐中是否能夠被外匯管理局認可作為申請跨境支付的依據(jù)存在一定的不確定因素，因此，在選擇交易文件的爭議解決條款時，如預見后續(xù)擔保履約時跨境資金流動會有障礙的，可以考慮約定在境內(nèi)的法院或仲裁機構(gòu)解決爭議以確保今后跨境支付的可行性。
Litigation/Arbitration: the onshore seller may initiate a lawsuit/arbitration against the offshore guarantor. With a judgment or award in favor of the onshore seller, it may apply to the foreign exchange administration authorities for cross-border payment. Considering that it is questionable whether a foreign judgment or award can be accepted by the foreign exchange administration authorities for cross-border payment, when determining the dispute resolution clause of the transaction documents, if it is anticipated that there could be obstacles for cross-border fund payment at the time of guarantee performance, it is advisable to choose the PRC court or arbitration institution for dispute resolution to ensure the feasibility of future cross-border payment.?
2)?簽訂借款合同模式：在境內(nèi)收購方本身經(jīng)營范圍包含投資類經(jīng)營活動或是一家投資性公司（具體分析見下段）的前提下，可以在擔保合同中約定，一旦發(fā)生擔保履約事件，境外擔保企業(yè)/銀行應立即與境內(nèi)收購方簽訂借款合同，借款給境內(nèi)收購方，境內(nèi)收購方取得款項后再履行對境內(nèi)出售方的支付義務。為了確保這一條款會被切實履行，保障出售方的利益，實踐中可以考慮將事先定稿的借款協(xié)議附在交易文件中，且境外擔保企業(yè)/銀行及境內(nèi)收購方均事先簽署好簽字頁，交給律師代為保管，一旦發(fā)生擔保履約事件，律師無條件交換簽字頁，促使借款合同生效。
Execution of Loan Agreement: provided that the onshore acquirer’s business scope includes "investment activities" or is an investment company (see detailed analysis in the following paragraph), the parties may specify in the guarantee agreement that upon the occurrence of a guarantee performance event, the offshore guarantor company/bank shall execute a loan agreement with the onshore acquirer immediately and lend the relevant fund to the onshore acquirer, upon which the onshore acquirer will perform its payment obligations against the onshore seller. To ensure the actual performance of such provisions and protect the interest of the seller, in practice it is advisable to attach the agreed form of the loan agreement to the transaction documents and have the offshore guarantor company/bank and the onshore acquirer to execute such loan agreement in advance and put the signature pages in escrow with the lawyers. Upon occurrence of a guarantee performance event, the lawyers will unconditionally exchange the signature pages and effectuate the loan agreement.
?
若擬采用本變通方案，需特別注意的是，實踐中只有在境內(nèi)收購方同時滿足以下兩個條件的情況下才得以采用此變通方式：(1) 境內(nèi)收購方的經(jīng)營范圍需包含投資類經(jīng)營活動或是一家投資性公司。根據(jù)《外債管理暫行辦法》的規(guī)定，境內(nèi)企業(yè)所借短期外債資金主要用作流動資金；中長期外債資金，應當嚴格按照批準的用途合理使用。根據(jù)該項規(guī)定，境內(nèi)收購方進行股權(quán)投資所借取的外債僅能為中長期外債。而根據(jù)筆者與各地外匯管理局的咨詢，中長期外債用途必須符合借款方經(jīng)營范圍方得以結(jié)匯使用。因此，如果外債資金系用于支付股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓款，只有在境內(nèi)收購方的經(jīng)營范圍本身包含投資類經(jīng)營活動的情況下，此變通方案才有可行性，部分外管局甚至要求境內(nèi)收購方必須是投資性公司才可以借取外債用于支付股權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓款；以及 (2) 境內(nèi)收購方從境外擔保方所借取的款項還必須在其屆時的外債額度范圍內(nèi)。
It is worth noting that this alternative is only feasible in practice when the onshore acquirer meets both of the following conditions: (1) the onshore acquirer’s business scope shall include "investment activities" or shall be an investment company. According to the Interim Measures on the Management of Foreign Debt, an onshore enterprise’s short-term foreign debt shall be principally used for working capital; yet the use of the mid-long term foreign debt proceeds shall be strictly complied with the approved usage. Based on such, the foreign debt borrowed by the onshore acquirer’s equity investment can only be the mid-long term foreign debt. According to the authors’ consultation with various foreign exchange administration authorities, the usage of a mid-long term foreign debt proceeds must comply with the borrower’s business scope. Therefore, if the borrowed foreign debt fund is used for paying the equity transfer price, this alternative is feasible only when the onshore acquirer includes investment activities in its business scope. Certain foreign exchange administration authorities even require that the onshore acquirer to be an investment oriented company so as to borrow foreign debt for the payment of equity transfer price; and (2) the amount to be borrowed from the offshore guarantor shall be also within the foreign debt quota of the onshore acquirer at that time.
?
前述兩種替代方案都存在操作繁瑣、耗時長以及需要各方積極配合的缺點，但是，在沒有其它可選的擔保方式時，也不失為一個折中方案。
The above two alternatives both have the downsides of complicated and time-consuming procedures and largely depend on the active cooperation among the parties. However, these are still feasible compromises when the parties run out of other choices.
?
3.收購方、擔保方在境內(nèi)，出售方在境外（表3）- 其他跨境擔保
Both Acquirer and Guarantor are Onshore; Seller is Offshore (Chart 3) - Other Cross-border Guarantee
?
風險系數(shù)/Risk Level：★★★☆☆
風險承擔方/Risk Bearer：境外出售方/Offshore Seller
風險點/Risks：
? 不屬于要求登記的跨境擔保類型。擔保履約時可能會由于此類擔保未經(jīng)登記而面臨履約款項跨境支付受到外匯管制的棘手問題；
It does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee. The guarantee performance may face a practical issue of foreign exchange restrictions against the cross-border payments without cross-border guarantee registration;
?
??變通方案包括： (1)通過訴訟或仲裁取得判決/裁決文書從而進行跨境支付；或 (2)由境內(nèi)擔保方先行將相應款項出借給境內(nèi)收購方，供境內(nèi)收購方履約。
Alternatives include: (1) make cross-border payments by obtaining a judgment/award through court trial or arbitration; or (2) have the onshore guarantor lend the relevant fund to the onshore acquirer to perform its contractual obligations.
?
該模式不屬于《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》中要求登記的跨境擔保類型，同上述第2種模式一樣，會因為擔保方和債權(quán)人分處境內(nèi)、境外而發(fā)生由于外匯管制而導致的支付履約款困難的問題。同樣的，具有一定可行性的變通方案包括：(1) 通過訴訟或仲裁取得判決/裁決文書，再由擔保方申請對外支付；或(2)由境內(nèi)擔保方先行向境內(nèi)收購方出借相應款項，再由境內(nèi)收購方向境外出售方履行支付義務的方案。該方案下，鑒于擔保方與收購方同屬境內(nèi)，因此不會受限于上述第2種模式下經(jīng)營范圍和外債問題的限制。
This method does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee under the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees. Same as Method 2, this method also encounters the issue of difficulty in guarantee performance due to the foreign exchange control faced by the cross-border localities of the guarantor and creditor. Similarly, alternatives with certain feasibility include: (1) obtaining a judgment/award through court trial or arbitration, upon which the guarantor can apply for remittance of funds offshore; or (2) having the onshore guarantor lend the relevant fund to the onshore acquirer in the first place, and then the onshore acquirer will perform its payment obligation against the offshore seller. In this alternative, since both the guarantor and the acquirer are onshore, the issues of business scope and foreign debt concerned in Method 2 above do not apply here.
?
4.收購方、擔保方在境外，出售方在境內(nèi)（表4）- 其他跨境擔保
Both Acquirer and Guarantor are Offshore, Seller is Onshore (Chart 4) - Other Cross-border Guarantee
?
風險系數(shù)/Risk Level：★★★☆☆
風險承擔方/Risk Bearer：境內(nèi)出售方/Onshore Seller
風險點/Risks：
? 不屬于要求登記的跨境擔保類型。擔保履約時可能會由于此類擔保未經(jīng)登記而面臨履約款項跨境支付受到外匯管制的棘手問題；
It does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee. The guarantee performance may face a practical issue of foreign exchange restrictions against the cross-border payments without cross-border guarantee registration;
?
??變通方案包括：(1) 通過訴訟或仲裁取得判決/裁決文書從而進行跨境支付；或 (2) 由境外擔保方將資金先行出借給境外收購方用于境外收購方履約。
Alternatives include: (1) making cross-border payments by obtaining a judgment/award through court trial or arbitration; or (2) having the offshore guarantor lend the relevant fund to the offshore acquirer to perform its contractual obligations.
?
該模式屬于上述第3種模式的映射模式，同樣也不屬于《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》中要求登記的跨境擔保類型。本模式下的主要風險點與變通方案與上述第3種模式相同，因此不再贅述。
This method is the reflection of Method 3 above, and also does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee under the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees. The risks and alternatives associated with this method are the same as those of Method 3 above, and thus will not be repeated here.
?
5.出售方、擔保方在境內(nèi)，收購方在境外（表5）- 其他跨境擔保
Both Seller and Guarantor are Onshore; Acquirer is Offshore (Chart 5) - Other Cross-border Guarantee
?
風險系數(shù)/Risk Level：★★★☆☆
風險承擔方/Risk Bearer：境內(nèi)擔保企業(yè)/銀行/Onshore Guarantor Company/Bank
風險點/Risks：
? 不屬于要求登記的跨境擔保類型。擔保履約不存在障礙，但發(fā)生擔保履約事件后，境內(nèi)擔保方對境外收購方的對外債權(quán)能否登記受限于外匯管理局的個案審核，可能存在障礙。
It does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee. The guarantee performance will not face obstacle, while upon guarantee performance, whether the creditor rights entitled to the onshore guarantor against the offshore acquirer is registrable will be subject to the foreign exchange administration authorities’ review on a case-by-case basis, and may face obstacles.?
?
該模式不屬于《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》中要求登記的跨境擔保類型。實際操作中，如發(fā)生擔保履約，因為債權(quán)人和擔保方同處境內(nèi)，擔保方向債權(quán)人履約付款不會遇到資金跨境流動的障礙。但是境內(nèi)擔保方向境內(nèi)出售方支付相關(guān)款項后，轉(zhuǎn)而對境外收購方擁有一筆對外債權(quán)。由于該筆對外債權(quán)與一般的對外債權(quán)不同，即并無資金出境在先，僅存在未來的資金入境，實踐中，此類特殊的對外債權(quán)能否登記受限于外匯管理局的個案審核，具有不確定性。如果未能實現(xiàn)對外債權(quán)的登記，境內(nèi)擔保方可能無法取得境外收購方的還款。
This method does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee under the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees. In practice, since both the creditor and the guarantor are onshore companies, the payment from the guarantor to the creditor will not face the issue of cross-border fund transmission at the time of the guarantee performance. Yet after payment of the fund by the onshore guarantor to the onshore seller, such payment in turn becomes the creditor rights owned by the onshore guarantor against the offshore acquirer. Such creditor rights do not arise from actual fund flow out of China, yet merely involve future fund flow into China, which is different from the ordinary offshore creditor rights. In practice, whether such special creditor rights against the offshore acquirer can be registered will be subject to the foreign exchange administration authorities’ review on a case-by-case basis, and thus is unpredictable. If not registered, onshore guarantor may not be indemnified by the offshore acquirer.
?
6.出售方、擔保方在境外，收購方在境內(nèi)（表6）- 其他跨境擔保
Both Seller and Guarantor are Offshore, Acquirer is Onshore (Chart 6) - Other Cross-border Guarantee
?
風險系數(shù)/Risk Level：★★★★☆
風險承擔方/Risk Bearer：境外擔保企業(yè)/銀行/Offshore Guarantor Company/Bank
風險點/Risks：
不屬于要求登記的跨境擔保類型。發(fā)生擔保履約事件后境外擔保方可直接向境外出售方付款，但是境外擔保方可能面臨無法獲得境內(nèi)收購方償付的風險。
It does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee.? Upon guarantee performance, the offshore guarantor may make payment to the offshore seller directly, while it may face the risk of being unable to get indemnified from the onshore acquirer.
?
變通方案包括：(1) 通過訴訟或仲裁取得判決/裁決文書從而進行跨境支付；或 (2) 由境外擔保方先行將相應款項出借給境內(nèi)收購方，供境內(nèi)收購方履約。但此變通方案受限于境內(nèi)企業(yè)的經(jīng)營范圍和外債額度。
Alternatives include: (1) making cross-border payments by obtaining a judgment/award through court trial or arbitration; or (2) having the offshore guarantor lend the relevant fund to the onshore acquirer to perform its contractual obligations. Yet such alternative is subject to the business scope and foreign debt quota of the onshore company.
?
該模式不屬于《跨境擔保外匯管理規(guī)定》中要求登記的跨境擔保類型。因為擔保人和債權(quán)人同處境外，發(fā)生擔保履約事件時，擔保方向債權(quán)人履約付款不會受到跨境資金流動的阻礙。但是，一旦擔保人向出售方代為支付相關(guān)款項，境內(nèi)收購方和境外擔保方之間將會形成一筆跨境債權(quán)債務關(guān)系。境內(nèi)收購方今后向境外擔保方償付該筆款項將受外匯管制影響?？紤]到此種模式非常容易成為對外轉(zhuǎn)移資產(chǎn)的幌子，根據(jù)筆者與多地外匯管理局的咨詢，絕大多數(shù)外匯管理局對此類跨境擔保的安排持非常謹慎的態(tài)度。因此，在這種模式下，若發(fā)生擔保履約，境外擔保方可能面臨無法獲得償付的風險。本模式下的變通方案及變通條件與上述第2種模式相同，因此不再贅述。
This method does not fall under the registrable cross-border guarantee under the Provisions on the Foreign Exchange Administration of Cross-border Guarantees. Since the guarantor and the creditor are both offshore, upon the performance of the guarantee, the guarantor’s payment to the creditor will not be hindered by cross-border fund flow restrictions. However, once the guarantor makes the payment to the seller on behalf of the buyer, there will be a cross-border creditor and debtor relationship between the onshore acquirer and offshore guarantor. The onshore acquirer’s future repayment to the offshore guarantor will be subject to foreign exchange control. Considering that this method is likely to be used as a disguised way to transfer assets overseas, based on the authors’ inquiry with various local foreign exchange administration authorities, most local authorities hold very strict attitude against such cross-border guarantee. Therefore, under this method, if there is guarantee performance, the offshore guarantor may face the risk of being unable to get indemnified. The alternatives and corresponding requirements for such alternatives are the same as those of Method 2 above, and thus are not repeated here.
?
綜上，在跨境并購中的擔保模式變化多樣，涉及到的外匯監(jiān)管以及各類衍生法律問題比較復雜。因此，企業(yè)在跨境并購時，如果涉及到需要使用跨境擔保來保證交易的安全性，應及時尋求專業(yè)律師的意見并提前與各相關(guān)部門和銀行進行咨詢，以設(shè)計出安全、可行的跨境擔保結(jié)構(gòu)。
Above all, there are various guarantee methods in cross-border M&A transactions, which involve complicated foreign exchange control and legal issues. Therefore, for a cross-border M&A transaction, if the company wishes to use cross-border guarantee to ensure transaction safety, it shall promptly seek professional advice from lawyers and consult with the relevant authorities and banks in advance, so as to design a safe and feasible cross-border guarantee structure.
?
注：
[1]?跨境并購中，常見的跨境擔保方式包括保證、抵押擔保、質(zhì)押擔保等或其組合。本文所討論的跨境擔保主要針對保證這一擔保模式。為求一致性，本文英語翻譯中"跨境擔保"統(tǒng)一譯作"cross-border guarantee"。
In cross-border M&A, the cross-border security usually takes the form of guarantee, mortgage, pledge and etc. or a combination of the above.? The cross-border security discussed herein refers mainly to cross-border guarantee.? And we use the term "cross-border guarantee" throughout this article for consistency purpose.
[2]?現(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)本身并未強制要求擔保人和債務人之間需具有股權(quán)或關(guān)聯(lián)關(guān)系。
The existing laws and regulations do not impose statutory requirement that the guarantor and the debtor shall have shareholding or affiliation relationship.
?
特別聲明：
以上所刊登的文章僅代表作者本人觀點，不代表北京市中倫律師事務所或其律師出具的任何形式之法律意見或建議。
如需轉(zhuǎn)載或引用該等文章的任何內(nèi)容，請私信溝通授權(quán)事宜，并于轉(zhuǎn)載時在文章開頭處注明來源于公眾號"中倫視界"及作者姓名。未經(jīng)本所書面授權(quán)，不得轉(zhuǎn)載或使用該等文章中的任何內(nèi)容，含圖片、影像等試聽資料。如您有意就相關(guān)議題進一步交流或探討，歡迎與本所聯(lián)系。
相關(guān)人員
-
-
王維眾
權(quán)益合伙人
上海業(yè)務領(lǐng)域： 投資并購和公司治理,融資業(yè)務,訴訟仲裁 -
王維眾
權(quán)益合伙人
上海
-
