本所最近在上海高院审理的一起私募基金股权转让纠纷中赢得二审改判，成功扭转一审法院穿透式审查合同关系，否定私募股权投资交易，认定涉案交易构成“名股实债”，并二审确立了私募股权投资的法律审查规则：
即私募股权投资中，同时包含股权投资的内容，也有债权融资的特点，交易与典型的借款合同或投资合同均有所不同，不应也无需界定为某种单一法律性质的合同，在合同有效的前提下，可以根据合同具体约定处理各方之间的权利义务，尊重当事人意思自治。Our firm recently achieved a favorable
appellate decision in the Shanghai High People's Court in a dispute involving
the exit of a private equity fund. The appellate court overturned the
first-instance judgment, which had conducted penetrating trial thinking of the
contractual relationships and rejected the characterization of the transaction as a genuine equity
investment, instead identifying it as a "disguised loan"
relationship.The appellate court established an
important legal precedent for the review of private equity investments,
recognizing that such transactions may include characteristics of both equity
investment and debt financing. The court held that these transactions differ
from conventional loan agreements or investment contracts and should not be
confined to a singular legal characterization. Instead, provided that the
contract is valid, the rights and obligations of the parties should be
interpreted and enforced based on the specific terms of the agreement, thereby
upholding the principle of party autonomy.
关于我们
本文仅供参考，不应视为虹桥正瀚律师事务所或其律师出具的正式法律意见或建议。
如需转载或引用本文的任何内容，请于留言区或私信沟通授权事宜，并于转载时注明来源于公众号“虹桥正瀚律师”及作者姓名。
![]()
![]()
