国有企业重组是指通过收购、划转、合并、分立、资产剥离、混改（包括科改）等方式，对国有企业进行重新组织，以实现资源优化配置、企业整体竞争力提升的效果。其中，公司分立是一种常见的重组模式，多适用于分拆上市、解决同业竞争、突出主营业务等场景。笔者结合近期项目经验，就国有企业以分立方式实施重组所涉及的相关法律问题进行探讨。
一、公司分立的基本流程及国企分立特别程序
根据《关于做好公司合并分立登记支持企业兼并重组的意见》（工商企字〔2011〕226号）第二条[1]，公司分立是一个公司分成两个或两个以上的公司，包括存续分立和新设分立两种形式。存续分立是一个公司分立成两个以上公司，本公司继续存续，同时设立一个及以上新的公司。新设分立是一个公司分立为两个及以上新的公司，本公司解散。无论采用哪种形式的分立，公司分立前的债务均由分立后的公司承担连带责任。公司分立的常规流程包括制定分立方案、通过分立决议、编制资产负债表和财产清单、签订分立协议、公告及通知债权人及办理公司分立登记。将于2024年7月1日施行的新修订《公司法》增加了“国家企业信用信息公示系统”作为公告的平台（不再仅限于登报公告），其余关于分立的规定并无实质性变化。
在我国商事实践中，由于清算相关主体未必能严格履行清算义务，以及解散清算制度本身的不完备性等原因，导致存在大量公司自行解散清算并注销，却仍遗留部分债务未处理的情况。此时债务人的公司法人人格已经终止，不再是民事责任承担主体，债权人只能选择其他主体主张权利，这无疑增加了债权追偿的难度，在司法实践中引发了大量争议。
2024年7月1日，新《公司法》即将实施，新法一方面对现行的解散清算制度进行了优化，明确了以董事为主的清算主体责任；另一方面则强化了股东的出资责任，特别规定股东的最长认缴出资期限为五年，且要求存量公司逐步调整至该期限内，这预计将引发大量未实缴出资的公司通过解散清算程序进行注销，从而带来更多公司注销后遗留债务的追偿难题。基于这种新形势，笔者根据近年来代理不良债权追偿项目的经验，梳理并归纳了对遗留债务的追偿路径，以期为面临类似情况的债权人提供参考和借鉴。
一、《公司法》修订与遗留债务的追偿现状
Federal appellate courts have traditionally applied a "person aggrieved" standard to determine whether a party has standing to appeal a bankruptcy court order or judgment. However, this standard, which requires a direct, adverse, and financial impact on a potential appellant, is derived from a precursor to the Bankruptcy Code and does not appear in the existing statute.
The court-fashioned doctrine of "equitable mootness" has frequently been applied to bar appeals of bankruptcy court orders under circumstances where reversal or modification of an order could jeopardize, for example, the implementation of a negotiated chapter 11 plan or related agreements and upset the expectations of third parties who have relied on the order.
On June 6, 2023, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas confirmed the chapter 11 plan of bedding manufacturer Serta Simmons Bedding, LLC and its affiliates (collectively, "Serta"). In confirming Serta's plan, the court held that a 2020 "uptier," or "position enhancement," transaction (the "2020 Transaction") whereby Serta issued new debt secured by a priming lien on its assets and purchased its existing debt from participating lenders at a discount with a portion of the proceeds did not violate the terms of Serta's 2016 credit agreement.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the application of the provision, including application to financial institutions, its preemptive scope, and its application to non-publicly traded securities.
Bankruptcy trustees and chapter 11 debtors-in-possession ("DIPs") frequently seek to avoid fraudulent transfers and obligations under section 544(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and state fraudulent transfer or other applicable nonbankruptcy laws because the statutory "look-back" period for avoidance under many nonbankruptcy laws exceeds the two-year period governing avoidance actions under section 548.
The finality of asset sales and other transactions in bankruptcy is an indispensable feature of U.S. bankruptcy law designed to maximize the value of a bankruptcy estate as expeditiously as possible for the benefit of all stakeholders. To promote such finality, section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits reversal or modification on appeal of an order authorizing a sale or lease to a "good-faith" purchaser or lessee unless the party challenging the sale obtains a stay pending appeal. What constitutes "good faith" has sometimes been disputed by the courts.
Since May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued three decisions addressing or potentially impacting issues of bankruptcy law. These included rulings concerning the abrogation of sovereign immunity for Native American tribes under the Bankruptcy Code, and for instrumentalities of Puerto Rico under a similar statute enacted in 2016 allowing the Commonwealth to restructure its debts. The Court also handed down an opinion concerning a homeowner's entitlement to the surplus proceeds of a real estate tax foreclosure sale.
Whether a dispute that is subject to arbitration can or must be referred to arbitration after one of the parties to a prepetition arbitration agreement files for bankruptcy has long been a source of disagreement among bankruptcy and appellate courts due to a perceived conflict between the Federal Arbitration Act and the Bankruptcy Code. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois recently provided some useful guidance regarding this issue.