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.
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
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.
We have previously blogged about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, the Supreme Court decision last June that invalidated the 2018 difference in fees between bankruptcy cases filed in Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts.