中伦观点

在系列上篇中，我们梳理了地产项目债务重组相关政策，结合经验总结债务重组的原则、项目与项目公司尽职调查实务重点。在下篇中，我们着重梳理困境项目重组方案经验，并分享对行政赋能的一些思考，供读者参考。

房地产行业高速发展10余年，在“房住不炒”的宏观背景以及2020年8月“三道红线”政策后，因房地产行业的发展模式及市场发展规律、政策执行力度、国家宏观调控等多方面的原因，房地产市场从2021年9月开始经历行业“缩表”的阵痛，不少大型房地产企业先后出现债务风险，面临诸多的困难处境，继而影响资金方、施工方、材料设备供应方及购房业主等多方主体。房地产市场影响国民经济及民生多个方面，在行业困境下，政府亦在监管、维稳、施救等多方面遇到难题。表面上看，各方主体皆可按政策与法律处理，但实操中，商业诉求与法律的平衡，经济效果与社会效果、法律效果的协调，社会资源的调度与节约，仍需探索最佳路径。

本文仅就困境项目的成因、市场常见盘活方案等问题，从法律角度予以整理，请勿以此作为法律意见在实践中套用。

一、困境项目重组方案

房地产行业高速发展10余年，在“房住不炒”的宏观背景以及2020年8月“三道红线”政策后，因房地产行业的发展模式及市场发展规律、政策执行力度、国家宏观调控等多方面的原因，房地产市场从2021年9月开始经历行业“缩表”的阵痛，不少大型房地产企业先后出现债务风险，面临诸多的困难处境，继而影响资金方、施工方、材料设备供应方及购房业主等多方主体。房地产市场影响国民经济及民生多个方面，在行业困境下，政府亦在监管、维稳、施救等多方面遇到难题。表面上看，各方主体皆可按政策与法律处理，但实操中，商业诉求与法律的平衡，经济效果与社会效果、法律效果的协调，社会资源的调度与节约，仍需探索最佳路径。

单纯的法律手段难以解决问题的情形下，笔者认为：房地产困境的解决，最终需要落实到具体的房地产项目庭外重组与盘活。开展全行业性的政策拯救或对大型地产公司进行全面的庭外重组盘活，需假以时日并多方共同努力。因此，结合近一年多的地产项目重组盘活经验，笔者希望从政府管理、商业诉求、法律实践等方面，为各方在房地产项目困境中破局提供些建议，达到解决具体房地产项目的实际问题，使项目价值最大化，最大程度实现各方利益诉求，从一定程度上缓解目前房地产困境。

本文仅就困境项目的成因、市场常见盘活方案等问题，从法律角度予以整理，请勿以此作为法律意见在实践中套用。

One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.

How does it happen?

As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.

When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia declined to annul a bankruptcy in circumstances where the bankrupt claimed the proceedings should have been adjourned given his incarceration and solvency at the time the order was made: Mehajer v Weston in his Capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713. The judgment is useful in reiterating what factors the Court will consider when deciding whether to order an annulment under section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act).

Generally, once a company enters into liquidation, litigation against that company cannot be commenced or be continued without the leave of the Court (Corporations Act 2001, s 471B). However, occasionally a liquidator may cause a company to commence or defend litigation after the commencement of the winding up. What happens if the company in liquidation is unsuccessful in that litigation and is subject to an adverse cost order? How will such an adverse cost order rank amongst other competing creditors?

Getting to the top

The Federal Court of Australia recently struck off an insolvency practitioner from the register of liquidators and restrained him for ten years for acting as an insolvency practitioner. The case concerns the conduct of David Iannuzi, who the Court found had "repeatedly fell short of the standards that would ordinarily be expected of him as a competent registered liquidator". The judgment sets out in detail the conduct that the Court found to be unsatisfactory and serves as a reminder of the standards expected of liquidators.

Background

It is well known that a company served with a statutory demand has 21 days to comply. If the recipient fails to pay the amount of the demand (or obtain a court order extending the period for compliance) within the period of 21 days after the demand is served, the creditor may rely on the failure as a basis to apply for the company to be wound up in insolvency. But what if the company pays, or seeks to pay, the amount of the statutory demand after the 21 day period has expired?