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”
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has clarified the circumstances in which a liquidator may recover deposit funds paid to a third party and the extent to which a counterparty may rely on the good-faith defence under section 588FG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
In Yeo (liquidator), in the matter of Tuftex Carpets Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2025] FCA 1200 the liquidators sought approval from the court to enter into a settlement agreement. The claims underlying the settlement agreement were against the former director and parent company for insolvent trading and the resulting loss.
Key Takeaways
In Re Resource Development Group Limited (Administrators Appointed) [2025] WASC 408, the Court granted relief to the voluntary administrators of Resource Development Group Ltd (RDG) from personal liability under a loan arrangement and extended time for the registration of a related security interest.
Key Takeaway
In Re Bayview Health – Matilda Bay Pharmacy Pty Ltd; ex parte Smith & Jacobs [No 2] [2025] WASC 405, the Court held that a failure to provide the 14 days’ notice of a board meeting, required by a shareholder agreement, to appoint a voluntary administrator, was a procedural irregularity that could be cured.
Key Takeaway
According to the latest statistics from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC), the construction industry has faced sustained and accelerating financial distress over the past four years. Since FY 2021-2022, the number of insolvency appointments has almost tripled, with nearly 4,900 cases in FY 2024-2025 alone. And, the 744 cases already recorded for FY 2025-2026 indicate the construction industry continues to suffer severe financial distress.
In a recent decision, In the matter of Toys “R” Us ANZ Limited (subject to deed of company arrangement) [2025] FCA 1135, the Federal Court provided important clarification as to its discretionary power to permit the administrator of a deed of company arrangement to transfer share in the company.
Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.
The High Court of Australia (being Australia’s highest court) refused special leave to appeal the Full Federal Court’s decision inCEG Direct Securities Pty Ltd v Cooper (as liquidator)[2025] FCAFC 47. The Court held that the Full Court’s decision turned on the application of the relevant provision to the particular facts of that case and did not raise any broader question of principle.
Introduction