2025年是“十四五”规划收官之年，也是深入贯彻《中共中央关于进一步全面深化改革、推进中国式现代化的决定》（下称“《决定》”）进一步全面深化改革的重要一年。《决定》指出：“健全企业破产机制，探索建立个人破产制度，推进企业注销配套改革，完善企业退出制度。健全社会信用体系和监管制度。”在《决定》的指引下，2025年国内围绕破产制度的立法、司法亮点纷呈，市场主体运用破产制度纾困、退出、权利维护的实践更加深入和丰富，破产重整制度在加强营商环境建设、促进民营经济发展、防范化解重大风险、增进人民福祉等方面都发挥了重要作用。值此新旧更替之际，本文试图梳理和总结2025年中国公司破产重整实务情况并展望2026年的发展态势，以求教于同仁。
一、概览
上市公司重整是重整领域的风向标，由于其衔接了资本市场和破产制度两大重要领域，且上市公司具有公众性、公开性和稀缺性等特点，因此受到了广泛的关注，可谓是重整皇冠上的一颗明珠。自《中华人民共和国企业破产法》实施至今，共计103家上市公司实施了重整，其中最近四年的重整案例数量占据了总量的半壁江山并呈现出新的特点，同时亦产生诸多前沿法律问题并在一定程度上推动了现行重整制度和证券监管政策的变革和调整。
一、近年上市公司重整所呈现的特点
1. 顶层政策明确支持。2020年，国务院在《关于进一步提高上市公司质量的意见》中，明确提出“支持上市公司通过并购重组、破产重整等方式出清风险”。在实务中，近年来证监会对上市公司重整受理的审查政策适度宽松。主要表现在证监会对于上市公司违规担保、资金占用等问题，有条件地允许其在重整程序之中解决，而此前证监会原则上要求上市公司在进入重整前解决此类问题，致使很多存在违规问题的上市公司对重整脱困之路只能“望洋兴叹”。
One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.
How does it happen?
As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.
When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.
What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia declined to annul a bankruptcy in circumstances where the bankrupt claimed the proceedings should have been adjourned given his incarceration and solvency at the time the order was made: Mehajer v Weston in his Capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713. The judgment is useful in reiterating what factors the Court will consider when deciding whether to order an annulment under section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act).
Generally, once a company enters into liquidation, litigation against that company cannot be commenced or be continued without the leave of the Court (Corporations Act 2001, s 471B). However, occasionally a liquidator may cause a company to commence or defend litigation after the commencement of the winding up. What happens if the company in liquidation is unsuccessful in that litigation and is subject to an adverse cost order? How will such an adverse cost order rank amongst other competing creditors?
Getting to the top
The Federal Court of Australia recently struck off an insolvency practitioner from the register of liquidators and restrained him for ten years for acting as an insolvency practitioner. The case concerns the conduct of David Iannuzi, who the Court found had "repeatedly fell short of the standards that would ordinarily be expected of him as a competent registered liquidator". The judgment sets out in detail the conduct that the Court found to be unsatisfactory and serves as a reminder of the standards expected of liquidators.
Background
It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?