前 言
在全球化经济纵深发展与企业出海战略持续推进的背景下，开拓海外市场、融入全球产业链及供应链是中国内地企业未来重点发展的战略选择。然而，跨境商业活动在带来机遇的同时亦伴随着跨法域的风险与挑战，跨境破产无论在理论还是实务都具有相当的复杂性。
本文将以主要利益中心原则（Centre of Main Interests，以下简称“COMI”）为出发点，结合实务案例浅析COMI原则在部分海外国家的适用及中国内地债权人的应对策略，为出海企业提供跨境破产风险管理的参考依据。
一、跨境破产视域下的管辖权
“跨境破产”概念及与之相关的规范均正式确立于联合国国际贸易法委员会1997年颁布的《跨境破产示范法》（UNCITRAL Model Laws on Cross-Border Insolvency，以下简称“《示范法》”）。《示范法》最为核心的内容便是确立了COMI在跨境破产管辖权认定上的重要作用，虽然COMI原则在近年受到来自“承诺规则”与“事后选择规则”等新兴理论的挑战[1]，但作为近30年来在全球63个法域普遍适用的基本准则[2]，掌握COMI在不同国家或地区的司法实践适用在当下仍具有重要的现实意义。
A. Introduction
The Singapore’s Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Natixis, Singapore Branch v Seshadri Rajagopalan and others and other appeals [2025] SGCA 29 serves as an important decision for the intersection between insolvency and admiralty laws. The decision addresses a dispute concerning admiralty statutory liens, examining whether the judicial managers of an insolvent ship owning company acted wrongfully by procuring the offshore arrest and judicial sale of a vessel, despite the appellants having issued admiralty in rem writs against it in Singapore.
© WongPartnership LLP DISCLAIMER: This update is intended for your general information only. It is not intended to be nor should it be regarded as or relied upon as legal advice. You should consult a qualified legal professional before taking any action or omitting to take action in relation to matters discussed herein. WongPartnership LLP (UEN: T08LL0003B) is a limited liability law partnership registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2005.
Investors or companies may, as part of their wider investment thesis or business plan, make distressed asset purchases to strategically acquire assets which they may otherwise not be able to conveniently or affordably obtain. While the face value of the asset purchased may be lower than that acquired in a “solvent” transaction, purchasers should be aware that such acquisitions carry a heavy tail liability risk, which may take the form of a potential clawback as a transaction at an undervalue.
Introduction
Introduction
The intersection of the arbitration and insolvency regimes has once again come under judicial scrutiny. In Aryan (SEA) Private Limited v Pure Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 99 (Aryan), the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (GD) considered whether an application to restrain a winding-up petition raised a dispute that prima facie fell within the scope of an arbitration agreement, or whether the application amounted to an abuse of process.
Key takeaways
Introduction
In this first instalment of our insights series on construction insolvency, Ironbridge Legal outlines key red flags to look for and practical steps to manage counterparty risk.
An Industry at Risk - With Contagion Potential
Asia-Pacific Restructuring Review 2025 Cryptoasset recovery and restructuring: lessons from the crypto winter in Singapore Asia-PaciRc Gestructuring Geview 2025 The Asia-PaciRc tesruncrnuigv tewie2 050C contains insight and thought leadership from 10 pre-eminent Asian .gures6 Across ,5 pagesv their articles comprise an inbaluayle retrospectibe on the jear kust gone6 All contriyutors are betted for their standing and wnoTledge yefore yeing inbited to tawe part6 Cogetherv thej capture and interpret the most suystantial legal and practice-related debelopments of the jear kust gonev complete Ti
In Re King & Wood Mallesons and other matters [2025] SGHC 67, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore (High Court) granted recognition and reliefs under the UNCITRAL Model Law on CrossBorder Insolvency (Model Law) in respect of a consolidated reorganisation of three Chinese companies in the People’s Republic of China (PRC). This decision provides guidance to insolvency office-holders appointed under PRC law on the procedural requirements to seek recognition under the Model Law in Singapore.