对于陷入困境的企业，可以通过与债权人之间以协议的方式，对企业进行债务调整和资产重构，以实现企业复兴和债务清偿。而债务重组中债权人最关注的即是如何有效地实现债权退出，不同类型的债权人、不同的债权情况所涉的债权人诉求均可能存在差异，提供多样化的债权退出路径可以更有效地促进困境企业债务重组成功。根据实践经验，我们总结出多种卓有成效的债权退出路径，包括但不限于直接参与留债重组、债权转股权、债权转让、资产证券化等等。

一、直接参与留债重组

对于债务人陷入流动性危机，但本身资质良好，给予一定的时间可度过困境恢复清偿能力的，债权人往往愿意与债务人就还款金额、还款方式、还款时间等债权债务问题达成新的协议，通过优化该类企业的资产负债结构、盘活企业不良资产，帮助企业渡过财务危机，最终实现债权受偿。

在留债重组的方式下，债权人亦可以有多种具体的债权退出路径，包括但不限于资产出售及资产盘活偿债、以资产或信托受益权等财产权抵债、以企业经营收益现金受偿、企业恢复良性负债率后融资还债等等。特殊情况下，如相关债权涉及企业继续经营所必需，还可以采取“类共益债”的形式，由全体债权人表决引入投资人协助原债权人退出。

（一）以部分资产出售偿债退出

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?