2025年是“十四五”规划收官之年,也是深入贯彻《中共中央关于进一步全面深化改革、推进中国式现代化的决定》(下称“《决定》”)进一步全面深化改革的重要一年。《决定》指出:“健全企业破产机制,探索建立个人破产制度,推进企业注销配套改革,完善企业退出制度。健全社会信用体系和监管制度。”在《决定》的指引下,2025年国内围绕破产制度的立法、司法亮点纷呈,市场主体运用破产制度纾困、退出、权利维护的实践更加深入和丰富,破产重整制度在加强营商环境建设、促进民营经济发展、防范化解重大风险、增进人民福祉等方面都发挥了重要作用。值此新旧更替之际,本文试图梳理和总结2025年中国公司破产重整实务情况并展望2026年的发展态势,以求教于同仁。
一、概览
Two recent cases out of the Third Circuit and the Southern District of New York highlight some of the developing formulas US courts are using when engaging with foreign debtors. In a case out of the Third Circuit, Vertivv. Wayne Burt, the court expanded on factors to be considered when deciding whether international comity requires the dismissal of US civil claims that impact foreign insolvency proceedings.
When a majority of a company’s board approves a tender offer in good faith, can it still be avoided as an actually fraudulent transfer? Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, holding that the fraudulent intent of a corporation’s CEO who was a board member and exercised control over the board can be imputed to the corporation, even if he was the sole actor with fraudulent intent.
Background
Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.
Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the case of CII Parent, Inc., cementing the advice routinely given by bankruptcy counsel to borrowers in default. We always counsel borrower clients in default of the risk associated with lenders taking unilateral actions pre-filing, stripping debtors of valuable options and assets. Thus, we normally recommend to always obtain a forbearance and undertake the preparations required to file a bankruptcy petition immediately upon forbearance termination, although whether or not to file depends on variety of factors that should be considered.
The Second Circuit recently held that a non-party to an assumed executory contract is not entitled to a cure payment (although it may be so entitled if is a third-party beneficiary of the contract). The result would have seemed obvious to bankruptcy practitioners. So, what in the world made the party pursuing payment take this to the Second Circuit? Well, surprisingly, as the Second Circuit decision shows, the answer is not found in the plain text of the Bankruptcy Code. And while it was argued prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S.
A mortgage loan repurchase facility (more casually referred to as a "repo") is a financing structure commonly utilized to finance mortgage loans. These facilities are utilized by both residential and commercial mortgage loan originators and aggregators to finance mortgage loans that they originate or acquire. The structure is favored by liquidity providers in the mortgage loan finance arena due to its preferential "safe harbor" treatment under the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"), as further described below.
上市公司重整是重整领域的风向标,由于其衔接了资本市场和破产制度两大重要领域,且上市公司具有公众性、公开性和稀缺性等特点,因此受到了广泛的关注,可谓是重整皇冠上的一颗明珠。自《中华人民共和国企业破产法》实施至今,共计103家上市公司实施了重整,其中最近四年的重整案例数量占据了总量的半壁江山并呈现出新的特点,同时亦产生诸多前沿法律问题并在一定程度上推动了现行重整制度和证券监管政策的变革和调整。
一、近年上市公司重整所呈现的特点
1. 顶层政策明确支持。2020年,国务院在《关于进一步提高上市公司质量的意见》中,明确提出“支持上市公司通过并购重组、破产重整等方式出清风险”。在实务中,近年来证监会对上市公司重整受理的审查政策适度宽松。主要表现在证监会对于上市公司违规担保、资金占用等问题,有条件地允许其在重整程序之中解决,而此前证监会原则上要求上市公司在进入重整前解决此类问题,致使很多存在违规问题的上市公司对重整脱困之路只能“望洋兴叹”。
Lenders often attempt to limit what a borrower can do outside the ordinary course of business by negotiating contractual protections. Some of these provisions are designed to make the borrowers bankruptcy remote by, for example, requiring the borrower’s Board to include an independent director whose consent is required for a bankruptcy filing. Others, as was the case we discuss here, however, go further by including contractual rights that limit a borrower’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent.
On Sunday, March 12th, the Treasury Department, the FDIC, and the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Fed) (the Agencies) announced that the New York Department of Financial Services had appointed the FDIC as receiver for Signature Bank, which was closed on March 11th. Subsequently, the FDIC announced that it had transferred substantially all of the assets and all of the deposits of Signature Bank to the newly created Signature Bridge Bank, N.A. Early on March 13th, the FDIC announced a similar transfer of assets and deposits to Silicon Valley Bank, N.A., another n