“金融机构债权人委员会”（简称“金融债委会”）是协商性、自律性、临时性组织，按照市场化、法治化、公平公正、分类施策的原则，依法维护金融机构作为债权人的合法权益。金融债委会可以按照“一企一策”的方针，集体研究增加融资、稳定融资、减少融资、重组等措施，确保债权金融机构形成合力，稳妥化解风险。

在我国经济处于下行期的大环境之下，各地大型民营企业频繁陷入债务危机，越来越多困境企业在庭外债务重组中使用金融债委会机制作为企业和债权人之间沟通的“黏合剂”、债务危机化解的“催化剂”以及与庭内司法重整或和解程序衔接的“融合剂”，由金融债委会主导庭外债务重组程序有效推进，如东旭集团等。本文意在对当前金融债委会机制的制度背景、发展现状、实践中的运行机制、存在的问题及解决方案等方面进行深入分析。

一、金融债委会国内外发展概况及制度优势

（一）国内外金融债委会制度发展概况

1、国外金融债委会制度发展概况

一、“集中管辖”概述

《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》（下称“《民事诉讼法》”）中，对于“集中管辖”并无明确的规定，而在民事诉讼的司法实践中，存在许多被称为“集中管辖”的做法。实务中，“集中管辖”泛指将某类案件，依照《民事诉讼法》及其他法律法规的相关规定，以司法解释或者通知的形式，集中由某类法院或某个法院管辖的情形。

概括来说，“集中管辖”共分为如下三种情形：

（1）某类法院集中管辖某类案件，如依据《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（下称“《企业破产法》”）第二十一条的规定，破产案件中涉债务人的诉讼案件集中由受理破产申请的人民法院管辖，或者依据《全国法院审理债券纠纷案件座谈会纪要》（以下简称“《债券会议纪要》”）第十条的规定，以发行人或者增信机构为被告提起的要求依约偿付债券本息或者履行增信义务的合同纠纷案件，由发行人住所地人民法院管辖；

（2）某个法院集中管辖某一类型化案件，如各地金融法院集中管辖当地金融案件、各地知识产权法院集中管辖当地知识产权案件；

随着国际形势与经济环境日益复杂严峻，中资美元债市场动荡加剧，频频爆雷，违约数量和金额不断创历史新高。本系列文章第二部分系从英国法和中国内地法探讨中资美元债所涉增信措施——维好协议。对此，笔者已在第二部分上篇中与各位读者分享了英国法下维好协议的效力判定等问题，下篇则将视角回归中国内地法，探寻以下问题：维好协议是否具有约束力？是否构成保证担保？涉及维好协议的域外裁判能否获得中国内地法院的承认与执行？以期为妥善处理和解决适用中国内地法的相关争议探寻参考路径。

第二部分 发债增信担保措施之——维好协议（下）

3. 维好协议在中国内地法律及司法实践中的归类与定性

3.1. 维好协议的产生背景及最新监管政策

The Court heard argument in the case on December 4, 2023.

Third-Party Releases in Chapter 11 Plans

A debtor's non-exempt assets (and even the debtor's entire business) are commonly sold during the course of a bankruptcy case by the trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") as a means of augmenting the bankruptcy estate for the benefit of stakeholders or to fund distributions under, or implement, a chapter 9, 11, 12, or 13 plan.

In most cases seeking recognition of a foreign bankruptcy proceeding in the United States under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, the foreign debtor's "foreign representative" has been appointed by the foreign court or administrative body overseeing the debtor's bankruptcy case.

The Bankruptcy Code does not explicitly authorize the equitable remedy of "substantive consolidation"—i.e., treating the assets and liabilities of two or more related entities as if they belonged to a single, consolidated bankruptcy estate. However, it is well recognized that a bankruptcy court has the authority to order such relief under appropriate circumstances in the exercise of its broad equitable powers when each of the original entities are already debtors subject to the court's jurisdiction.

Recent headlines have starkly illuminated the headwinds facing health care providers struggling to recover from a host of financial pressures. Many providers have resorted to filing for bankruptcy protection as a way, among other things, to right-size their balance sheets or effect a sale of their assets or businesses.

Bankruptcy and appellate courts disagree over the standard that should apply to a request for payment of a break-up fee or expense reimbursement to the losing bidder in a sale of assets outside the ordinary course of the debtor's business. Some apply a "business judgment" standard, while others require that the proposed payments satisfy the more rigorous standard applied to administrative expense claims.

Section 1124(2) of the Bankruptcy Code gives chapter 11 debtors a valuable tool for use in situations where long-term prepetition debt carries a significantly lower interest rate than the rates available at the time of emergence from bankruptcy. Under this section, in a chapter 11 plan, the debtor can "cure" any defaults under the relevant agreement and "reinstate" the maturity date and other terms of the original agreement, thus enabling the debtor to "lock in" a favorable interest rate in a prepetition loan agreement upon bankruptcy emergence.