近年来，由于经济形势下行叠加新冠疫情，众多企业陷入经营困难和债务危机，庭外债务重组因具有较高的灵活性、自主性，不受时间和程序上的限制，成为化解企业债务危机的重要方式，而敏感债权因其涉众性成为庭外债务重组程序中的棘手问题。敏感债权往往与非法集资有着千丝万缕的联系，本文将从庭外重组中涉非（涉嫌非法集资）敏感债权处置角度出发，具体分析敏感债权处置方案中的重点法律问题，以及律师在涉非敏感债权处置中的作用。

一、敏感债权的概念与特征

（一）敏感债权的概念

正如庭外重组一样，对于敏感债权，法律尚未给出明确的定义。结合过往庭外重组等债务风险处置案例，可以将敏感债权理解为：因涉及众多自然人债权人，可能涉嫌非法集资，而需要在债务处置中特别考虑的债权，主要包括涉及个人的理财产品和民间集资。

（二）敏感债权的特征

敏感债权的主要特点如下：

1. 债权人一般为自然人，且人数众多，具有涉众性特点。敏感债权一般涉及众多自然人债权人，这类群体抗风险能力一般较差，企业债务危机爆发后，如果无法及时清偿敏感债权，可能诱发群体性事件，影响社会稳定。

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?