近年来，预重整已成为上市公司进入司法重整前几乎不可或缺的前置环节，其源于本土需求、服务于纾困实践的兴起路径，彰显了市场对高效挽救机制的迫切期待。然而，在立法规则尚属空白、实践探索快速扩张的背景下，该制度正面临深刻的异化趋势：预重整作为解决重整效率瓶颈与确定性风险而诞生的“辅助工具”，当其价值被证明有效后，迅速从“可选项”变成“默认项”，几乎成为上市公司重整的必经之路，其功能从“预先协商桥梁”偏移为“实质工作前置”，进而引致临时管理人角色模糊、权责失衡、企业拯救成本攀升等一系列结构性困境。基于对这一市场趋势的密切关注与忧思，本文聚焦于制度逻辑的完整性、各方权责利的平衡性以及程序正义的可实现性，将依次追溯制度的生成逻辑，呈现规则图谱的留白现状，解剖功能偏移衍生的核心痛点，并最终尝试提出使预重整回归其商业谈判本质、约束于重整前协商程序的路径展望。笔者深信，唯有正视当前实践中的张力与悖论，方能推动这一重要企业风险纾困工具的行稳致远，真正实现其提升困境企业重生效率与公平的初心。

一、制度起源：中国本土语境下的生成逻辑与“生存突围”

前言

2024年8月26日，苏州市检察院发布了《破产检察监督案件审查指引》（以下简称“《指引》”）。《指引》共计四章六十八条，全面涵盖破产检察监督的基本原则、监督范围、审查要素、监督方式和工作保障等内容。一定程度上，这是全国首例由检察机关根据破产程序的不同环节，详细完善地单独出台破产检察监督相关规定。9月30日，江苏省检察院召开破产领域检察监督工作新闻发布会，通报了全省检察机关开展破产领域检察监督工作的整体情况。

在《指引》出台前，检察机关对破产程序进行检察监督的法律规定较为原则化，缺乏实操层面的系统性规范。近年随着破产重整等案件数量的大幅增加，破产法律制度因缺乏直接、高效的违法行为监督与纠偏机制，导致债权人等破产参与主体的救济机制略显单一，在经济发展和立法实践中呈现出局限性。在各界呼吁拓展外部监督机制的背景下，各地检察机关不断深化提升破产检察监督职能。在本次《指引》发布前，江苏省检察院在2020年即已出台《加强破产案件检察监督工作的指导意见（试行）》，尝试更为规范地对破产程序进行检察监督。通过4年时间的摸索、总结与完善，江苏省检察机关共办理涉破产监督案件1,351件，为本次《指引》的出台奠定了理论与实践基础。

In Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2071 (2024) (“Purdue”), the Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize nonconsensual releases of nondebtors as part of a chapter 11 plan. The Court narrowly read the Code’s language, providing that a plan may “include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title,” 11 U.S.C.

We have previouslyblogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548.

We have previously blogged about the section 546(e) defense to a trustee’s avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code. A trustee has broad powers to set aside certain transfers made by debtors before bankruptcy. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544, 547, 548. Section 546(e), however, bars avoiding certain transfers, including a “settlement payment . . . made by or to (or for the benefit of) . . . a financial institution [or] a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a . . . financial institution . . . in connection with a securities contract.” 11 U.S.C. § 546(e).

Federal law assigns to U.S. district courts original jurisdiction over all cases under Title 11 (the Bankruptcy Code) and all civil proceedings arising under Title 11 or arising in or relating to Title 11. See 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a), (b). Federal law permits each U.S. district court to refer such cases and civil proceedings to bankruptcy courts, and district courts generally do so. But bankruptcy courts, unlike district courts, are not courts under Article III of the Constitution, and are therefore constrained in what powers they may constitutionally exercise.

Section 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code enables a trustee to step into the shoes of a creditor and avoid a transfer “of an interest of the debtor in property” that an unsecured creditor could avoid under applicable state law. See 11 U.S.C. § 544(b)(1). Thus, for example, if outside of bankruptcy a creditor could avoid a transaction entered by a debtor as a fraudulent transfer, in bankruptcy, the trustee acquires the power to avoid such a transaction.

We have blogged a fewtimes about the Supreme Court’s decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald and its implications.

We have previously blogged about Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of the fraud exception to the dischargeability of debts in bankruptcy. Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code exempts from discharge “any debt . . . for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by . . .

The concept of “property of the estate” is important in bankruptcy because it determines what property can be used or distributed for the benefit of the debtor’s creditors. Defined by section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, “property of the estate” broadly encompasses the debtor’s interests in property, with certain additions and exceptions provided for in the Code. See 11 U.S.C. § 541. Difficult questions can arise in a contractual relationship between a debtor and a counterparty about whether an entity actually owns a particular asset or merely has some contractual right.