前几天校长讲了👉 安邦海外卖资产：骗中骗的大戏！
在这个安邦（大家）和韩国未来资产公司的诉讼中，一个词汇扮演了很重要的角色 - only。
这个案子里面对MAC、in the ordinary course covenant等交易中的关键点进行了分析。其中一个很有意思的点在于安邦和韩国人签订协议之后，因为新冠疫情发生后，安邦旗下售卖的酒店开始关店、开始让员工不上班等等行为是否符合所谓的交易过渡期中卖方需要“按照历史行为相关的商业惯常行为”承诺去运营酒店的承诺。
双方的交易文件是咋子写的呢，👇这样写得。
Except as otherwise contemplated by this Agreement or as set forth in Section 5.1 of the Disclosure Schedules,between the date of this Agreement and the Closing Date, unless the Buyer shall otherwise provide its prior written consent (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed), the business of the Company and its Subsidiaries shall be conducted only in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practice in all material respects,including using commercially reasonable efforts to maintain commercially reasonable levels of Supplies, F&B, Retail Inventory, Liquor Assets and FF&E consistent with past practice, and in accordance with the Company Management Agreements.
看起来好像没得啥子特殊得。但是，有个词语很关键，“only", 这个说啥子呢？就是说安邦你在交易的过渡期，要咋子来保证这些酒店要按照过去的实践来按照惯常运营。你说新冠疫情期间采取的这些方式，是不是符合过去的实践？
这个好像可以做两种解释，一种是过去没得新冠得，当然在新冠期间所做的事情是和过去惯常做的事情是不符合的；但是另外一种解释是说，如果过去也发生了新冠，那我做的事情就是符合在发生新冠情况下的Ordinary course of business。
但是，安邦和韩国人在这里选择了”only“，把only和consistent with past practice一结合起来，这下就排除了法官去看在特殊情况下和其他公司在新冠疫情下如何做的可能性。
当然，对于这个ordinary course covenant的对打，双方几乎在
Except as otherwise contemplated by this Agreement or as set forth in Section 5.1 of the Disclosure Schedules,between the date of this Agreement and the Closing Date, unless the Buyer shall otherwise provide its prior written consent (which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed), the business of the Company and its Subsidiaries shall be conducted only in the ordinary course of business consistent with past practice in all material respects,including using commercially reasonable efforts to maintain commercially reasonable levels of Supplies, F&B, Retail Inventory, Liquor Assets and FF&E consistent with past practice, and in accordance with the Company Management Agreements. 这一段中找出了每个可能抗辩的词汇来进行分析。更多详细内容👇
比如另一个”commercially reasonable“，安邦抗辩说，我要采取“按照历史行为相关的商业惯常行为”承诺的标准是商业合理啊，不是说我啥都不能做啊。但是，仔细看的化，阔以看出来安邦并没有把commercially reasonable 放在conducted的前面，而是放在了后面关于如何具体保持酒店的库存、资产等语句的前面，这个商业合理并不是去限制“按照历史行为相关的商业惯常行为”承诺，而是限制后面的具体事项的。
写上一个Only，就可以把一个强有力的抗辩干残！安邦在这个58亿美元交易的案件中输了，还有其他方面的原因，但是交易中，就是一个一个这样的细节最终来决定成败生死的！
来法商学院，保护好国际商务活动中的权益！
来一起线下交流起来！
点击阅读原文，报名面基！