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

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.^[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.

Case Background

A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision^[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.

On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.

Case Background

When an individual files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case, the debtor’s non-exempt assets become property of the estate that is used to pay creditors. “Property of the estate” is a defined term under the Bankruptcy Code, so a disputed question in many cases is: What assets are, in fact, available to creditors?

Once a Chapter 7 debtor receives a discharge of personal debts, creditors are enjoined from taking action to collect, recover, or offset such debts. However, unlike personal debts, liens held by secured creditors “ride through” bankruptcy. The underlying debt secured by the lien may be extinguished, but as long as the lien is valid it survives the bankruptcy.

A Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan requires a debtor to satisfy unsecured debts by paying all “projected disposable income” to unsecured creditors over a five-year period. In a recent case before the U.S.

One of the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code is to ensure that each class of creditors is treated equally. And one of the ways that is accomplished is to allow the debtor’s estate to claw back certain pre-petition payments made to creditors. Accordingly, creditors of a debtor who files for bankruptcy are often unpleasantly surprised to learn that they may be forced to relinquish “preferential” payments they received before the bankruptcy filing.

A party who believes that a bankruptcy court erred in either granting or denying relief from the automatic stay needs to act fast to appeal such a decision. In the recently decided case of Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court held that: “[A]djudication of a motion for relief from the automatic stay forms a discrete procedural unit within the embracive bankruptcy case” which “yields a final, appealable order when the bankruptcy court unreservedly grants or denies relief.”

In bankruptcy, a debtor must relinquish assets to satisfy debts. But there are exceptions to this general rule. Certain assets may be exempted from a debtor’s bankruptcy under federal and state law. Other assets, which are subject to a contractual loan agreement and the security interest of a lender, may be “reaffirmed” by a debtor pursuant to a reaffirmation agreement.