自改革开放以来，我国经济经历了四十余年的高速增长，目前已由高速增长阶段转向高质量发展阶段。在高速增长阶段积累的债务风险近年来不断显现，金融机构的不良资产不断增加。现阶段为深化供给侧结构性改革，推动经济高质量发展，对我国经济社会发展过程中存在债务风险的重点领域实施系统性、高质量的债务重组是重要的着力点之一。

自上世纪九十年代以来，金杜开始参与我国一些大型企业集团的债务重组工作；2007年《企业破产法》实施后，金杜更是一直活跃在债务重组市场的一线，既承办和参与了包括海航集团、紫光集团、渤海钢铁、永泰能源、盐湖股份、雨润集团、包商银行、新华信托等在内的一大批大型企业债务重组案件，也承办了大量的“三无”、中小型的企业破产清算案件。金杜债务重组部三十多年来一直专注债务重组领域，积累了丰富的债务重组实践经验。为对我国的债务重组实践提供有益借鉴，同时也为金杜能够更好地服务于债务重组市场，结合过往承办的债务重组具体案例，我们对债务重组市场进行2023年度回顾和观察分析，以期对相关法治建设、营商环境改善以及提高债务重组质量建言献策。

目录

一、2023年我国宏观债务形势整体观察

（一）2023年度宏观经济形势

（二）我国目前存在债务问题的重点领域

This week’s TGIF takes a look at the recent case of Mills Oakley (a partnership) v Asset HQ Australia Pty Ltd [2019] VSC 98, where the Supreme Court of Victoria found the statutory presumption of insolvency did not arise as there had not been effective service of a statutory demand due to a typographical error in the postal address.

What happened?

This week’s TGIF examines a decision of the Victorian Supreme Court which found that several proofs had been wrongly admitted or rejected, and had correct decisions been made, the company would not have been put into liquidation.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF considers Re Broens Pty Limited (in liq) [2018] NSWSC 1747, in which a liquidator was held to be justified in making distributions to creditors in spite of several claims by employees for long service leave entitlements.

What happened?

On 19 December 2016, voluntary administrators were appointed to Broens Pty Limited (the Company). The Company supplied machinery & services to manufacturers in aerospace, rail, defence and mining industries.

This week’s TGIF considers the recent case of Vanguard v Modena [2018] FCA 1461, where the Court ordered a non-party director to pay indemnity costs due to his conduct in opposing winding-up proceedings against his company.

Background

Vanguard served a statutory demand on Modena on 27 September 2017 seeking payment of outstanding “commitment fees” totalling $138,000 which Modena was obliged, but had failed, to repay.

The recent decision of the Court of Appeal of Western Australia, Hamersley Iron Pty Ltd v Forge Group Power Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) (Receivers and Managers Appointed) [2018] WASCA 163 provides much needed clarity around the law of set-off. The decision will no doubt help creditors sleep well at night, knowing that when contracting with counterparties that later become insolvent they will not lose their set-off rights for a lack of mutuality where the counterparty has granted security over its assets.

This week’s TGIF considers the decision in Mujkic Family Company Pty Ltd v Clarke & Gee Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 4, which concerns a rather novel issue – whether a solicitor acting for a shareholder might also owe a duty of care to the company in liquidation.

What happened?

In 2015, the Supreme Court of Queensland ordered that the corporate trustee of a family trust be wound up.

This week’s TGIF considers the process that a liquidator may follow when a director fails to attend at an examination. It considers the appeal in Mensink v Parbery [2018] FCAFC 101, in which the Court set out the relevant differences between arrest warrants issued to require a director to attend an examination, and arrest warrants to answer charges for contempt.

What happened?

How far do liquidators’ powers to demand documents for public examinations extend? Which documents can they request and from whom can they request them?

In this week’s TGIF, we consider these questions in the context of the recent case of Re Cathro [2018] FCA 1138.

BACKGROUND

This week’s TGIF examines a recent decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal in Hosking v Extend N Build Pty Limited [2018] NSWCA 149, which considered whether payments made by a third party to an insolvent company’s creditors could be recovered by the liquidator as unfair preferences.

What happened?