发布时间： Fri Oct 14 13:37:04 CST 2016 供稿人：许德风
北京仲裁委员会 争议摘要
来源：《商法 》第7 辑第7 期
承债式收购，指在股权并购中，收购方承担目标公司的债务作为其购买股权对价的部分或全部。以下结合出让方/ 收购方交易动机的差异讨论此类交易的法律风险和防范规则。
情形一
出让人因公司陷入偿债困境而转让股权，引入战略投资者，以期换得企业的新生。但因目标公司的债务不透明，收购方对目标公司债务情况缺乏信心，约定承债后方将剩余价款作为购买股权的对价支付给出让人，以便降低收购中的债务风险。此类安排对出让人的风险是，受让人在交割后夸大目标公司的债务负担而拒绝履行剩余价款支付义务。
例如，在一个案件中，交易双方就目标公司的股权转让达成一致，约定受让人乙直接向目标公司A支付5000万元，偿债后剩余部分支付给A 公司股东即出让人甲（缔约时预期为 万元）。此后，双方发生争议：股权让渡后，出让人要求受让人支付剩余款项，受让人则主张偿债数额远超预期，予以拒绝。
双方的争执具体体现在以下几个方面：
（1）当事人未能就偿债清单达成一致：对于收购方接管后的债务清偿，目标公司原股东（出让人）多数均拒绝承认；而对于受让人提供的有关偿债情况的报告，出让人拒绝认可。
（2）受让人认为偿债后无剩余，故已无须向出让人支付；出让人即目标公司股东则认为应支付剩余价款，但因已失去对目标公司的控制，并不了解实际偿债的情况，在未制定完善的偿债数额计算及共同认可的债权确认机制的情况下，无法就剩余款项数额提出准确的请求。
（3）当事人在债务负担中广泛使用财务术语如营业收入、营业成本、营业费用、期间损益等字样，其法律含义不明，亦各执己见
反思因此类承债式收购所引起的争议，在设计交易结构时应注意以下几点：
（1）应详细议定债权债务清单或共同确定债权债务数额的机制。注意，仅仅约定如“双方将友好协商以确定偿债数额”的条款是不充分的，若想避免未来的纠纷，必须详细拟定协商不成时的替代机制，包括中立第三方的选任及双方相互配合的义务和不履行相应义务的法律后果。
（2）应明确偿债期限和偿债程序，包括明确主要债务的清偿期限及具体程序（如须经出让人确认），也包括将诸如已过诉讼时效或无人主张的债权排除在偿债清单之外。
情形二
出让人个人为目标公司的债务提供了担保，通过承债式收购安排，让收购方承担目标公司的债务，避免出让人承担个人责任。在这类交易中，常见的风险是在目标公司交割后，收购方拒绝履行偿债义务。
在这种情况下，出让人固然可以请求收购方履行义务，但因涉向第三人履行（目标公司的债权人），明确履行的数额、对象是主张权利的前提。
在一个真实案件中，受让人接受企业之后拒绝履行义务，出让人请求其履行，但因已经失去对目标公司的控制而无法准确说明受让人姓名/ 名称及债权数额的情况而陷入被动的境地。对此，虽然可以通过与各个债权人联系核实加以解决，但徒增非常多负担。
值得一提的是，在承债式收购安排之中，应区分承债式收购与债务承担。
在承债式收购中，目标公司仍是债务人，只是收购方须向目标公司注入资金，用于偿债；而在债务承担中，收购方本身则成为债务人，与目标公司一起对债权人负责（并存的债务承担）或取代目标公司而成为债务人（免责的债务承担，此种债务承担因须征求债权人同意而在实践中较少应用）。
在债务承担安排中，目标公司的债权人会因为收购方的自愿加入而取得对收购方的请求权。
情形三
目标公司（尤以老旧国企为典型）的资产有一定的价值，但流动资金匮乏，须引入外部资金偿还劳动债权及企业的其他历史性负担等以便完成转让的步骤。在这样的交易安排中，第三人如劳动债权人是否享有对收购方直接的请求权也常常是争议的焦点，须在收购协议中加以明确。从收购方的角度来说，与出让人（常常是地方政府）达成“一揽子”的解决方案，在交易中向出让人支付用于偿债的款项，同时监管该款项的使用，是行之有效的办法。
最后，从受让人的角度来看，避免债务风险的重要途径是灵活运用破产重整程序。以朝华科技（000688，现更名为建新矿业）为例，在朝华科技的重整中，为了迅速实现重整，新投资人设立新公司，以该公司所有资产（包括承债式收购获得的原朝华科技的资产）承担朝华科技按重整计划减免后的债务。债权人按照剩余债权数额向新公司主张权利，并恢复计息。而原债务人（朝华科技股份有限公司）在重整计划执行完毕后，对债权人不再承担清偿责任，从而根本性地涤除债务风险。
税收问题
除了上述风险外，承债式收购还须注意税收问题。根据《企业会计准则解释第5号》第6条的规定，企业接受代为偿债、债务豁免或捐赠，按照企业会计准则规定符合确认条件的，通常应当确认为当期收益；但是，企业接受非控股股东（或非控股股东的子公司）直接或间接代为偿债、债务豁免或捐赠，经济实质表明属于非控股股东对企业的资本性投入，应当将相关利得计入所有者权益（资本公积），前者为当期收益，后者为资本投入，计税标准有重大差异。
BAC/BIAC DISPUTE DIGEST
Risk prevention in debt-assumed acquisitions
The term debt-assumed acquisition refers to an arrangement in which the acquirer assumes the liabilities/debts of the target company instead of paying all consideration to the original shareholders (transferor). The following recommendations are given on how to prevent legal risks in such transactions, in various situations according to different motives of the parties.
SITUATION I
When a company runs into financial troubles,its shareholders may transfer part or the majority of their shares to strategic investors, in the hope of saving the company.Under a situation where the acquirer lacks confidence in the target company’s debts, which have little transparency,in order to minimize acquisition risks,the parties would agree that the acquirer assumes the debts of the target company and pays the remainder of the consideration to the transferor after paying off all the debts. Such an arrangement would put the transferor at risk that the acquirer may overstate the amount of debts and refuse to pay the rest of the consideration after gaining control of the target company.
For example, there were two parties who agreed that the acquirer should pay RMB50 million (US$7.5 million) directly to the target company and the transferor would get the remainder (expected to be RMB20 million at the time of the agreement) after all the debts were paid off.After the share transfer was completed,a dispute arose between the two parties.The transferor required the acquirer to pay the rest of the consideration, while the acquirer refused, asserting that the amount of debt was far beyond expectation.
The disputes were as follows:
(1) The transferor refused to recognize the acquirer’s debt payment as necessary and the parties failed to reach an agreement on the debt list;
(2) The acquirer asserted that he was free from the obligation to pay any remainder to the transferor because all of the consideration was used to pay off the debts of the target company. On the other hand, the transferor insisted that the acquirer should pay the remainder, but he was unable to make accurate claims against the acquirer because he had lost control of the target company and had no access to corresponding information;
(3) The parties had different understandings on the legal meaning of some financial terms widely used in debt-assumed deals, such as revenue, operating costs, operating expenses, and even profit or loss.
To prevent this kind of dispute in debt-assumed acquisition, a carefully designed transaction structure is of great importance. The parties should make a detailed list of debts or establish a functional co-operating mechanism to determine the amount of debt together.The acquisition agreement should include terms about the appointment of a neutral third party for debt evaluation,the obligations of the parties to co-operate and the legal consequences of failure to do so.
In addition, the time limit and the procedure of debt payment must be clarified (such as the confirmation by the seller as a prerequisite), as well as the exclusion of the debts where statutes of limitation have expired. It is highly recommended that the transferor make the progress of debt elimination a precondition of partial or ultimate transfer of shares and the management/administration of power.
SITUATION II
If the transferor has provided personal guarantees for the target company’s debts,he or she would prefer debt-assumed acquisition on the grounds that personal obligation can be exempted. In such transactions, it is not uncommon that the acquirer refuses to fulfil obligations to pay off the target company’s debts after the closing of the deal.
Under such a situation, though the transferor has the right to request the acquirer to perform his or her obligations,it is necessary for the transferor to clarify the amount of debt and the concrete names of the creditors.
In a case where the acquirer refused to fulfil his obligations after taking over the company, the transferor asked for specific performance, but fell into a disadvantageous position as he had lost control of the target company and couldn’t accurately describe the creditors’ names, or the amount of the debt.
It is worth mentioning that debt-assumed acquisition should be distinguished from debt assumption. In debt-assumed acquisition, the target company remains the debtor and the acquirer should inject capital into the target company for debt payment. In debt assumption, the acquirer becomes a debtor, assuming the debts together with the target company (assumption as co-debtors), or replacing the target company to be the sole debtor (which is rarely used in practice because it requires the consent of the creditor). In this case (substitution), the target company’s creditors gain the right to claim directly against the acquirer to pay off the debt.
SITUATION III
In some situations, the target company still has some valuable assets but has insufficient liquid assets and needs external funds to pay defaulted labour claims and clear other burdens on businesses in order to complete the share transfer. In such arrangements,whether a third party, such as labour creditors,enjoys the right to request the acquirer to perform is often the focus of controversy.From the perspective of the acquirer, it is an effective way to negotiate with the transferor to reach a “package” solution, according to which the acquirer pays the transferor a lump sum and the latter is responsible for the elimination of historical burdens.
Finally, from the perspective of the acquirer, another effective solution to minimize debt risk is the flexible use of the bankruptcy law. In the reorganization proceedings of Zarva Technology (now known as Jianxin Mining), the investors set up a new company and used all its assets (including assets obtained from Zarva)to assume Zarva’s debts. Zarva’s creditors could request the new company to pay the remaining debts plus interest, while the former Zarva Technology didn’t assume any debt after the implementation of the reorganization plan, and was thus free from all future debt risk.
TAX ISSUES
Tax issues are also important in debt-assumed acquisition. According to article 6 of Enterprise Accounting Standards No. 5, the acquirer’s payment in form of debt assumption can be viewed as target company revenue of the period in accordance;however, such a payment can also be deemed as capital contribution if the economic substance of the transaction supports such a judgement.
北京仲裁委员会/北京国际仲裁中心仲裁员、北京大学法学院院聘教授许德风
Xu Defeng is an arbitrator with Beijing Arbitration Commission/Beijing International Arbitration Centre, and a professor at the Law School of Peking University
