项目融资交易和贷款方责任中的权利介入机制——英国和巴西的法律途径

Carla Rossi
{"title":"项目融资交易和贷款方责任中的权利介入机制——英国和巴西的法律途径","authors":"Carla Rossi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3144346","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Step-in rights, in the context of a project finance, are contractual mechanisms through which lenders, upon certain events pre-agreed, may intervene in a project company that they are financing to perform certain actions, to either cure a specific breach or recover the project. Lenders’ step-in can be performed in several manners, including, without limitation, by taking ownership of company’s shares or control of company’s governance bodies, or novation of the project’s contracts. Measures taken by lenders while exercising their step-in rights are likely to affect not only the project company but also third parties involved in the project, as users and company’s employees. Assuming that a step-in occurs, one question that needs to be asked is whether lenders are liable for events occurred before or during the step-in period. Per the English Law, with some exceptions, a clause that exempt a party from liabilities may be effective and an English court may enforce it based on to the principle of freedom of contract. On the other hand, under civil law countries, exemption of liabilities is a sensible matter and a court will unlikely enforce it if verify a causal link between the party whose liabilities was limited and the relevant damage. Due to the fact that lenders’ step-in and liabilities thereof are topics little explored by academics and legislators, the study in reference provides an analysis on how the English Law regulates those, with focus on what liabilities are susceptive of exemption and on what basis and whether lenders could be deemed liable as shadow directors. To give some parameter of comparison, approaches of other jurisdictions are brought to discussion. Special attention is being given to the Brazilian case, in particular due to the Brazilian Law 13.097/2015 that modified the articles on step-in rights in the Brazilian concession and public-private partnerships laws. The new wording of those articles provide that lenders are exempted from liabilities if their step-in rights are performed exclusively within the corporate governance structure of a project company (e.g., appointing members to the board or by veto rights). Controversially, if lenders take ownership of shares or in case of project contracts novation, they would be liable. This position contradicts the theory of the liability of the shadow directors and the principle of the separation of financial ownership and control. Additionally, the recent Brazilian law presents relevant gaps on how lenders’ step-in and related exemptions would be implemented and legally enforced in practice.","PeriodicalId":174628,"journal":{"name":"English Law: Business (Topic)","volume":"513 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Step-In Rights Mechanisms in Project Finance Transactions and Lenders’ Liabilities – The English and Brazilian Legal Approaches\",\"authors\":\"Carla Rossi\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3144346\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Step-in rights, in the context of a project finance, are contractual mechanisms through which lenders, upon certain events pre-agreed, may intervene in a project company that they are financing to perform certain actions, to either cure a specific breach or recover the project. Lenders’ step-in can be performed in several manners, including, without limitation, by taking ownership of company’s shares or control of company’s governance bodies, or novation of the project’s contracts. Measures taken by lenders while exercising their step-in rights are likely to affect not only the project company but also third parties involved in the project, as users and company’s employees. Assuming that a step-in occurs, one question that needs to be asked is whether lenders are liable for events occurred before or during the step-in period. Per the English Law, with some exceptions, a clause that exempt a party from liabilities may be effective and an English court may enforce it based on to the principle of freedom of contract. On the other hand, under civil law countries, exemption of liabilities is a sensible matter and a court will unlikely enforce it if verify a causal link between the party whose liabilities was limited and the relevant damage. Due to the fact that lenders’ step-in and liabilities thereof are topics little explored by academics and legislators, the study in reference provides an analysis on how the English Law regulates those, with focus on what liabilities are susceptive of exemption and on what basis and whether lenders could be deemed liable as shadow directors. To give some parameter of comparison, approaches of other jurisdictions are brought to discussion. Special attention is being given to the Brazilian case, in particular due to the Brazilian Law 13.097/2015 that modified the articles on step-in rights in the Brazilian concession and public-private partnerships laws. The new wording of those articles provide that lenders are exempted from liabilities if their step-in rights are performed exclusively within the corporate governance structure of a project company (e.g., appointing members to the board or by veto rights). Controversially, if lenders take ownership of shares or in case of project contracts novation, they would be liable. This position contradicts the theory of the liability of the shadow directors and the principle of the separation of financial ownership and control. Additionally, the recent Brazilian law presents relevant gaps on how lenders’ step-in and related exemptions would be implemented and legally enforced in practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":174628,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English Law: Business (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"513 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English Law: Business (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144346\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English Law: Business (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3144346","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在项目融资的背景下,介入权是一种合同机制,通过这种机制,贷款人可以在预先商定的某些事件中干预他们正在融资的项目公司,以执行某些行动,纠正特定的违约行为或收回项目。贷款人的介入可以通过几种方式进行,包括但不限于获得公司股份的所有权或控制公司治理机构,或更改项目合同。贷款人在行使其介入权时所采取的措施不仅可能影响到项目公司,也可能影响到参与项目的第三方,如用户和公司员工。假设介入发生了,需要问的一个问题是,贷款人是否对介入之前或期间发生的事件负责。根据英国法律,除一些例外情况外,免除一方责任的条款可能是有效的,英国法院可以根据合同自由原则执行该条款。另一方面,在大陆法系国家,责任豁免是一件明智的事情,如果法院证实责任被限制的一方与相关损害之间存在因果关系,则不太可能强制执行。由于出借人的介入及其责任是学术界和立法者很少探讨的话题,参考研究提供了对英国法律如何规范这些问题的分析,重点是哪些责任易于豁免,以及在什么基础上以及是否可以将出借人视为影子董事承担责任。为了提供一些比较参数,本文还讨论了其他司法管辖区的做法。由于巴西第13.097/2015号法律修改了巴西租界和公私伙伴关系法中关于介入权的条款,因此巴西的案例受到特别关注。这些条款的新措辞规定,如果贷方的介入权利完全在项目公司的公司治理结构内行使(例如,任命董事会成员或行使否决权),则免除其责任。有争议的是,如果出借人持有股份或在项目合同变更的情况下,他们将承担责任。这一立场与影子董事责任理论和财务所有权与控制权分离原则相矛盾。此外,巴西最近的法律在贷方介入和相关豁免如何在实践中实施和法律执行方面存在相关空白。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Step-In Rights Mechanisms in Project Finance Transactions and Lenders’ Liabilities – The English and Brazilian Legal Approaches
Step-in rights, in the context of a project finance, are contractual mechanisms through which lenders, upon certain events pre-agreed, may intervene in a project company that they are financing to perform certain actions, to either cure a specific breach or recover the project. Lenders’ step-in can be performed in several manners, including, without limitation, by taking ownership of company’s shares or control of company’s governance bodies, or novation of the project’s contracts. Measures taken by lenders while exercising their step-in rights are likely to affect not only the project company but also third parties involved in the project, as users and company’s employees. Assuming that a step-in occurs, one question that needs to be asked is whether lenders are liable for events occurred before or during the step-in period. Per the English Law, with some exceptions, a clause that exempt a party from liabilities may be effective and an English court may enforce it based on to the principle of freedom of contract. On the other hand, under civil law countries, exemption of liabilities is a sensible matter and a court will unlikely enforce it if verify a causal link between the party whose liabilities was limited and the relevant damage. Due to the fact that lenders’ step-in and liabilities thereof are topics little explored by academics and legislators, the study in reference provides an analysis on how the English Law regulates those, with focus on what liabilities are susceptive of exemption and on what basis and whether lenders could be deemed liable as shadow directors. To give some parameter of comparison, approaches of other jurisdictions are brought to discussion. Special attention is being given to the Brazilian case, in particular due to the Brazilian Law 13.097/2015 that modified the articles on step-in rights in the Brazilian concession and public-private partnerships laws. The new wording of those articles provide that lenders are exempted from liabilities if their step-in rights are performed exclusively within the corporate governance structure of a project company (e.g., appointing members to the board or by veto rights). Controversially, if lenders take ownership of shares or in case of project contracts novation, they would be liable. This position contradicts the theory of the liability of the shadow directors and the principle of the separation of financial ownership and control. Additionally, the recent Brazilian law presents relevant gaps on how lenders’ step-in and related exemptions would be implemented and legally enforced in practice.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信