具有涉外因素的對(duì)外擔(dān)保裁判規(guī)則

案說灣區(qū)?2023-08-21 09:00?發(fā)表于廣東

收錄于合集

#粵港澳大灣區(qū)

#以案說法

本文約3684字 預(yù)計(jì)閱讀時(shí)間12分鐘

案例一

恒生銀行有限公司與林建華等金融借款合同糾紛民事一審案件民事判決書

上海金融法院(2019)滬74民初127號(hào)

2021.07.30?裁判

裁判規(guī)則

管轄：本案當(dāng)事人約定的為非對(duì)稱管轄權(quán)條款及非排他管轄條款，并未限制原告恒生銀行在香港法院以外法院提起訴訟。恒生銀行與被告林建華之間的同一糾紛已由香港法院作出部分裁決亦并不影響本院審理本案并作出裁判。在有平行訴訟的情形下，盡管香港高等法院已受理原告恒生銀行起訴主債務(wù)人南浦公司、保證人林建華的案件，并作出部分判決，但并不影響本院對(duì)于原告恒生銀行訴被告林建華案件行使管轄權(quán)。

法律適用：天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司的擔(dān)保主體資格以及對(duì)外擔(dān)保的內(nèi)部授權(quán)，涉及公司權(quán)利能力以及行為能力問題，應(yīng)當(dāng)適用公司登記地法律，即內(nèi)地法律。恒生銀行債權(quán)的有效性及債權(quán)金額應(yīng)依據(jù)香港法認(rèn)定，但其可申報(bào)的破產(chǎn)債權(quán)范圍應(yīng)依據(jù)內(nèi)地破產(chǎn)法予以確定。

一人公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保的效力

：應(yīng)以其擔(dān)保行為是否得到股東同意而定。天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司是否有擔(dān)保的主體資格以及其對(duì)外擔(dān)保是否經(jīng)過內(nèi)部授權(quán)，應(yīng)適用內(nèi)地法律進(jìn)行認(rèn)定。被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司一人公司，目前法律并未禁止一人公司為其股東債務(wù)提供擔(dān)保。由于一人公司只有一名股東，在對(duì)外提供擔(dān)保時(shí)無法根據(jù)《中華人民共和國公司法》規(guī)定召開股東會(huì)進(jìn)行決議，亦不受該條回避表決之限制?！短焓}儲(chǔ)公司擔(dān)保函》是否存在導(dǎo)致其無效的其他情形應(yīng)依據(jù)香港法進(jìn)行認(rèn)定。目前沒有任何主張或證據(jù)顯示該擔(dān)保函存在無效情形。

基本案情

被告借款人南浦公司為香港私人股份公司，被告保證人林建華為控股股東，南浦公司現(xiàn)已被宣告解散。被告保證人外資企業(yè)天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司的唯一股東為南浦公司，其《章程》約定：“公司可以向其他企業(yè)投資或者為他人提供擔(dān)保，但需通過公司董事會(huì)決議，并經(jīng)出席董事五分之三通過，其他事項(xiàng)決議過半數(shù)通過即可?！?020年2月13日被法院裁定受理破產(chǎn)清算申請(qǐng)。

貸款人恒生銀行與南浦公司簽訂了多次貸款合同，本案包括一筆港幣6000萬元的循環(huán)貸款和一筆港幣1.75億元的定期貸款，這些貸款由林建華和天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司擔(dān)保。所有相關(guān)文件都受香港法管轄，貸款合同受香港法庭的非排他性司法管轄，擔(dān)保函香港法院對(duì)解決因本協(xié)議而產(chǎn)生的任何爭議具有專屬管轄權(quán)，不得阻止貸款人向其他有管轄權(quán)的法院同時(shí)提起與爭議相關(guān)的訴訟。在法律允許的范圍內(nèi)，貸款人可在任何司法管轄區(qū)同時(shí)提起訴訟。

因2018年9月4日第三人通過香港高等法院向南浦公司、林建華發(fā)出傳喚令，構(gòu)成交叉違約。恒生銀行分別于2019年8月8日獲香港高等法院對(duì)南浦公司、林建華作出民事判決、2019年10月15日獲香港高等法院對(duì)南浦公司作出民事判決。

恒生銀行提交了安睿順德倫國際律師事務(wù)所譚子喬律師的《中華人民共和國香港特別行政區(qū)法律意見書》就下述問題出具法律意見：貸款文件在香港法下是否合法有效，約定的貸款利率、逾期利率、費(fèi)用承擔(dān)的約定是否符合香港法規(guī)定，擔(dān)保函在香港法下是否有效，用單獨(dú)契據(jù)（deed）的方式確立擔(dān)保關(guān)系的法律意義，《天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司擔(dān)保函》效力的問題，保證人的擔(dān)保責(zé)任及擔(dān)保期限、缺席判決是否為最終判決。

裁判旨要

一、管轄權(quán)

本案當(dāng)事人約定的為非對(duì)稱管轄權(quán)條款以及非排他管轄條款，并未排除香港法院以外法院對(duì)于原告恒生銀行提起訴訟案件的管轄，本院作為被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司的住所地法院及被告林建華的可供扣押財(cái)產(chǎn)所在地法院享有本案管轄權(quán)，原告恒生銀行與被告林建華之間的同一糾紛已由香港法院作出部分裁決亦并不影響本院審理本案并作出裁判。

二、本案的法律適用

法律適用：天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司的擔(dān)保主體資格以及對(duì)外擔(dān)保的內(nèi)部授權(quán)，涉及公司權(quán)利能力以及行為能力問題，應(yīng)當(dāng)適用公司登記地法律，即內(nèi)地法律。恒生銀行債權(quán)的有效性及債權(quán)金額應(yīng)依據(jù)香港法認(rèn)定，但其可申報(bào)的破產(chǎn)債權(quán)范圍應(yīng)依據(jù)內(nèi)地破產(chǎn)法予以確定。

三、《天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司擔(dān)保函》的效力認(rèn)定

被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司系為其唯一股東南浦公司的債務(wù)提供擔(dān)保，擔(dān)保函由被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司法定代表人張某簽署，并加蓋公司公章。被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司辯稱，《擔(dān)保函》未依據(jù)公司章程約定召開董事會(huì)并經(jīng)出席董事五分之三通過，且根據(jù)《中華人民共和國公司法》第十六條的規(guī)定，為南浦公司債務(wù)提供擔(dān)保時(shí)南浦公司不應(yīng)參加股東會(huì)表決，故該擔(dān)保應(yīng)為無效。

本院認(rèn)為，天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司是否有擔(dān)保的主體資格以及其對(duì)外擔(dān)保是否經(jīng)過內(nèi)部授權(quán)，應(yīng)適用內(nèi)地法律進(jìn)行認(rèn)定。被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司一人公司，目前法律并未禁止一人公司為其股東債務(wù)提供擔(dān)保。由于一人公司只有一名股東，在對(duì)外提供擔(dān)保時(shí)無法根據(jù)《中華人民共和國公司法》規(guī)定召開股東會(huì)進(jìn)行決議，亦不受該條回避表決之限制。

一人公司對(duì)外擔(dān)保的效力應(yīng)以其擔(dān)保行為是否得到股東同意而定。根據(jù)《上海天盛倉儲(chǔ)有限公司股東會(huì)會(huì)議記錄摘要》，在被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司股東已同意其對(duì)外擔(dān)保的情形下，被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司以未經(jīng)董事會(huì)同意為由否定擔(dān)保的效力，缺乏法律依據(jù)。再次《天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司擔(dān)保函》是否存在導(dǎo)致其無效的其他情形應(yīng)依據(jù)香港法進(jìn)行認(rèn)定。因目前沒有任何主張或證據(jù)顯示該擔(dān)保函存在無效情形，故本院確認(rèn)其為合法有效。

四、保證人擔(dān)保責(zé)任的承擔(dān)

在香港法下的彌償合同，債權(quán)人無需先向債務(wù)人追討借款或確認(rèn)債務(wù)人無能力清償債務(wù)，即可要求獨(dú)立保證人償還到期欠款。被告天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司、被告林建華應(yīng)對(duì)南浦公司債務(wù)向原告恒生銀行承擔(dān)直接還款責(zé)任。

本案利息以及逾期利息的利率均未超出《放債人條例》規(guī)定的上限，亦不構(gòu)成懲罰性條款，原告恒生銀行有權(quán)主張。

2020年2月13日上海市第三中級(jí)人民法院裁定受理天盛倉儲(chǔ)公司的破產(chǎn)申請(qǐng)，根據(jù)《中華人民共和國企業(yè)破產(chǎn)法》第四十六條第二款“附利息的債權(quán)自破產(chǎn)申請(qǐng)受理時(shí)起停止計(jì)息”之規(guī)定，恒生銀行主張的借款利息以及逾期利息應(yīng)自2020年2月13日停止計(jì)算。

案例一

恒生銀行有限公司與林建華等金融借款合同糾紛民事一審案件民事判決書

上海金融法院(2019)滬74民初127號(hào)

2021.07.30?裁判

I.?Adjudication Rules:

Jurisdiction: The parties agreed to non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in this case, which did not restrict HSBC from filing lawsuits in courts other than Hong Kong courts. The partial ruling made by the Hong Kong court on the same dispute between HSBC and the defendant Lin Jianhua does not affect this court's hearing of this case and making an adjudication. In the circumstance of parallel litigation, although the High Court of Hong Kong has accepted the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff HSBC against the main debtor Nanpu Company and the guarantor Lin Jianhua and made a partial judgment, it does not affect this court's exercise of jurisdiction over the case of HSBC v. Lin Jianhua.

Choice of law: Regarding the qualification of Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. as a guarantee entity and internal authorization for external guarantee, which involve issues of corporate capacity and capacity for civil conduct, PRC law where the company is registered, namely mainland law, shall apply. The validity and amount of HSBC's creditor's rights shall be determined according to Hong Kong law, but the scope of bankruptcy creditor's rights that can be claimed shall be determined according to mainland bankruptcy law.

Effectiveness of guarantee by a sole proprietorship: It shall be determined based on whether the guarantee is obtained shareholder consent. Whether Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. has the qualification as a guarantee entity and whether its external guarantee has gone through internal authorization shall be determined by applying mainland law. The defendant Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. is a sole proprietorship. Current laws do not prohibit a sole proprietorship from providing guarantees for debts of its shareholder. As a sole proprietorship only has one shareholder, it cannot convene a shareholders' meeting for a resolution according to the provisions of the PRC Company Law when providing external guarantees, and is not subject to the restriction of abstention from voting in that clause. Whether there are other circumstances leading to the invalidity of the "Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. Letter of Guarantee" shall be determined according to Hong Kong law. Currently there are no claims or evidence showing that the letter of guarantee is invalid.

II.?Basic Case Information:

The borrowing company Nanpu is a private limited company in Hong Kong. The defendant guarantor Lin Jianhua is its controlling shareholder. Nanpu Company has now been dissolved. The sole shareholder of the defendant overseas company Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. is Nanpu Company. Its articles of association stipulate that: "The company can invest in other enterprises or provide guarantees for others, but it needs to be approved by a resolution of the board of directors passed by three-fifths of the attending directors; other matters shall be passed by a simple majority of votes." On February 13, 2020, it was ruled to accept the application for bankruptcy liquidation by the court.

The lender HSBC signed multiple loan contracts with Nanpu Company. This case involves a revolving loan of HK$60 million and a term loan of HK$175 million, both guaranteed by Lin Jianhua and Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. All relevant documents are subject to the jurisdiction of Hong Kong law. The loan contracts are subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts. The letter of guarantee confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Hong Kong courts to resolve any disputes arising from this agreement, and does not prevent the lender from simultaneously filing lawsuits related to the dispute with other courts having jurisdiction. Within the limits permitted by law, the lender may simultaneously initiate litigation in any jurisdiction.

On September 4, 2018, a third party served Nanpu Company and Lin Jianhua with a summons through the High Court of Hong Kong, constituting a cross-default. HSBC obtained civil judgments against Nanpu Company and Lin Jianhua on August 8, 2019 and against Nanpu Company on October 15, 2019, respectively, from the High Court of Hong Kong.

HSBC submitted the "Legal Opinion on the Laws of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" issued by Tan Zijiao, a lawyer with Andrews Kurth DaySort International Law Firm, on the following issues: whether the loan documents are legal and valid under Hong Kong law, whether the agreed loan interest rates, default interest rates, and fee bearing arrangements comply with Hong Kong regulations, whether the letter of guarantee is valid under Hong Kong law, the legal implications of establishing a guarantee relationship by a separate deed, the effectiveness issue of the "Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. Letter of Guarantee", the guarantor's guarantee liability and guarantee period, whether the default judgment is a final judgment.

III.?Judgment Summary:

1. Jurisdiction.

The parties agreed to non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses and non-exclusive jurisdiction clauses in this case, which did not exclude the jurisdiction of courts other than Hong Kong courts over lawsuits filed by the plaintiff HSBC, and this court, as the domicile court of the defendant Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. and the location of seizable assets of the defendant Lin Jianhua has jurisdiction over this case; the partial ruling made by the Hong Kong court on the same dispute between HSBC and the defendant Lin Jianhua does not affect this court's hearing of this case and making an adjudication.

2. Applicable law of this case.

The applicable law is: Regarding Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd.'s qualification as a guarantee entity and internal authorization for external guarantee, which involve issues of corporate capacity and capacity for civil conduct, PRC law where the company is registered, namely mainland law, shall apply. The validity and amount of HSBC's creditor's rights shall be determined according to Hong Kong law, but the scope of bankruptcy creditor's rights that can be claimed shall be determined according to mainland bankruptcy law.

3. Determination of the effectiveness of the "Letter of Guarantee of Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd.".

Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. provided guarantee for the debts of its sole shareholder Nanpu Company. The letter of guarantee was signed by the legal representative of the defendant Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. and stamped with the company seal. Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. argued that the "Letter of Guarantee" was not approved by the board of directors through a resolution passed by three-fifths of the attending directors in accordance with the company's articles of association, and according to Article 16 of the PRC Company Law, Nanpu Company should abstain from voting at the shareholders' meeting when providing guarantee for Nanpu Company's debts, so the guarantee should be invalid.

The court holds that whether Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. has the qualification as a guarantee entity and whether its external guarantee has gone through internal authorization shall be determined by applying mainland law. Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. is a sole proprietorship. Current laws do not prohibit a sole proprietorship from providing guarantees for debts of its shareholder. As a sole proprietorship only has one shareholder, it cannot convene a shareholders' meeting for a resolution according to the provisions of the PRC Company Law when providing external guarantees, and is not subject to the restriction of abstention from voting in that clause.

The effectiveness of external guarantee by a sole proprietorship shall be determined based on whether the guarantee is obtained shareholder consent. According to the "Minutes Summary of the Shareholders' Meeting of Shanghai Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd.", as the sole shareholder of Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. has agreed to its external guarantee, Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. denies the effectiveness of the guarantee on the grounds of lack of board approval, which lacks legal basis. Furthermore, whether there are other circumstances leading to the invalidity of the "Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. Letter of Guarantee" shall be determined according to Hong Kong law. As currently there are no claims or evidence showing that the letter of guarantee is invalid, the court confirms it as legally valid.

4. Assumption of guarantor's guarantee liability.

Under Hong Kong law in an indemnity contract, the creditor does not need to first pursue repayment from the debtor or confirm the debtor's inability to repay the debt, and can directly require the independent guarantor to repay the overdue amount. Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. and Lin Jianhua should assume the direct repayment liability to the plaintiff HSBC for Nanpu Company's debts.

The interest rates of this case and default interest rates did not exceed the upper limit stipulated in the Money Lenders Ordinance and did not constitute punitive clauses. HSBC is entitled to claim this.

On February 13, 2020, the Third Intermediate People's Court of Shanghai ruled to accept the bankruptcy application of Tiansheng Warehouse Co., Ltd. According to Article 46, Paragraph 2 of the PRC Enterprise Bankruptcy Law that "interest on interest-bearing claims shall stop accruing from the date the bankruptcy application is accepted", the interest on loans and default interest claimed by HSBC should stop accruing from February 13, 2000.