具有涉外因素的对外担保裁判规则
具有涉外因素的对外担保裁判规则
案说湾区 2023-08-21 09:00 发表于广东
收录于合集
#粤港澳大湾区
#以案说法
本文约3684字 预计阅读时间12分钟
案例一
恒生银行有限公司与林建华等金融借款合同纠纷民事一审案件民事判决书
上海金融法院(2019)沪74民初127号
2021.07.30 裁判
裁判规则
管辖：本案当事人约定的为非对称管辖权条款及非排他管辖条款，并未限制原告恒生银行在香港法院以外法院提起诉讼。恒生银行与被告林建华之间的同一纠纷已由香港法院作出部分裁决亦并不影响本院审理本案并作出裁判。在有平行诉讼的情形下，尽管香港高等法院已受理原告恒生银行起诉主债务人南浦公司、保证人林建华的案件，并作出部分判决，但并不影响本院对于原告恒生银行诉被告林建华案件行使管辖权。
法律适用：天盛仓储公司的担保主体资格以及对外担保的内部授权，涉及公司权利能力以及行为能力问题，应当适用公司登记地法律，即内地法律。恒生银行债权的有效性及债权金额应依据香港法认定，但其可申报的破产债权范围应依据内地破产法予以确定。
一人公司对外担保的效力
：应以其担保行为是否得到股东同意而定。天盛仓储公司是否有担保的主体资格以及其对外担保是否经过内部授权，应适用内地法律进行认定。被告天盛仓储公司一人公司，目前法律并未禁止一人公司为其股东债务提供担保。由于一人公司只有一名股东，在对外提供担保时无法根据《中华人民共和国公司法》规定召开股东会进行决议，亦不受该条回避表决之限制。《天盛仓储公司担保函》是否存在导致其无效的其他情形应依据香港法进行认定。目前没有任何主张或证据显示该担保函存在无效情形。
基本案情
被告借款人南浦公司为香港私人股份公司，被告保证人林建华为控股股东，南浦公司现已被宣告解散。被告保证人外资企业天盛仓储公司的唯一股东为南浦公司，其《章程》约定：“公司可以向其他企业投资或者为他人提供担保，但需通过公司董事会决议，并经出席董事五分之三通过，其他事项决议过半数通过即可。”2020年2月13日被法院裁定受理破产清算申请。
贷款人恒生银行与南浦公司签订了多次贷款合同，本案包括一笔港币6000万元的循环贷款和一笔港币1.75亿元的定期贷款，这些贷款由林建华和天盛仓储公司担保。所有相关文件都受香港法管辖，贷款合同受香港法庭的非排他性司法管辖，担保函香港法院对解决因本协议而产生的任何争议具有专属管辖权，不得阻止贷款人向其他有管辖权的法院同时提起与争议相关的诉讼。在法律允许的范围内，贷款人可在任何司法管辖区同时提起诉讼。
因2018年9月4日第三人通过香港高等法院向南浦公司、林建华发出传唤令，构成交叉违约。恒生银行分别于2019年8月8日获香港高等法院对南浦公司、林建华作出民事判决、2019年10月15日获香港高等法院对南浦公司作出民事判决。
恒生银行提交了安睿顺德伦国际律师事务所谭子乔律师的《中华人民共和国香港特别行政区法律意见书》就下述问题出具法律意见：贷款文件在香港法下是否合法有效，约定的贷款利率、逾期利率、费用承担的约定是否符合香港法规定，担保函在香港法下是否有效，用单独契据（deed）的方式确立担保关系的法律意义，《天盛仓储公司担保函》效力的问题，保证人的担保责任及担保期限、缺席判决是否为最终判决。
裁判旨要
一、管辖权
本案当事人约定的为非对称管辖权条款以及非排他管辖条款，并未排除香港法院以外法院对于原告恒生银行提起诉讼案件的管辖，本院作为被告天盛仓储公司的住所地法院及被告林建华的可供扣押财产所在地法院享有本案管辖权，原告恒生银行与被告林建华之间的同一纠纷已由香港法院作出部分裁决亦并不影响本院审理本案并作出裁判。
二、本案的法律适用
法律适用：天盛仓储公司的担保主体资格以及对外担保的内部授权，涉及公司权利能力以及行为能力问题，应当适用公司登记地法律，即内地法律。恒生银行债权的有效性及债权金额应依据香港法认定，但其可申报的破产债权范围应依据内地破产法予以确定。
三、《天盛仓储公司担保函》的效力认定
被告天盛仓储公司系为其唯一股东南浦公司的债务提供担保，担保函由被告天盛仓储公司法定代表人张某签署，并加盖公司公章。被告天盛仓储公司辩称，《担保函》未依据公司章程约定召开董事会并经出席董事五分之三通过，且根据《中华人民共和国公司法》第十六条的规定，为南浦公司债务提供担保时南浦公司不应参加股东会表决，故该担保应为无效。
本院认为，天盛仓储公司是否有担保的主体资格以及其对外担保是否经过内部授权，应适用内地法律进行认定。被告天盛仓储公司一人公司，目前法律并未禁止一人公司为其股东债务提供担保。由于一人公司只有一名股东，在对外提供担保时无法根据《中华人民共和国公司法》规定召开股东会进行决议，亦不受该条回避表决之限制。
一人公司对外担保的效力应以其担保行为是否得到股东同意而定。根据《上海天盛仓储有限公司股东会会议记录摘要》，在被告天盛仓储公司股东已同意其对外担保的情形下，被告天盛仓储公司以未经董事会同意为由否定担保的效力，缺乏法律依据。再次《天盛仓储公司担保函》是否存在导致其无效的其他情形应依据香港法进行认定。因目前没有任何主张或证据显示该担保函存在无效情形，故本院确认其为合法有效。
四、保证人担保责任的承担
在香港法下的弥偿合同，债权人无需先向债务人追讨借款或确认债务人无能力清偿债务，即可要求独立保证人偿还到期欠款。被告天盛仓储公司、被告林建华应对南浦公司债务向原告恒生银行承担直接还款责任。
本案利息以及逾期利息的利率均未超出《放债人条例》规定的上限，亦不构成惩罚性条款，原告恒生银行有权主张。
2020年2月13日上海市第三中级人民法院裁定受理天盛仓储公司的破产申请，根据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》第四十六条第二款“附利息的债权自破产申请受理时起停止计息”之规定，恒生银行主张的借款利息以及逾期利息应自2020年2月13日停止计算。
案例一
恒生银行有限公司与林建华等金融借款合同纠纷民事一审案件民事判决书
上海金融法院(2019)沪74民初127号
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.
