With effect from 9 May 2022, a new Order 74C of the Rules of the Superior Courts came into operation. Order 74C facilitates the operation of the Companies (Rescue Process for Small and Micro Companies) Act 2021, which inserted a new Part 10A into the Companies Act 2014 (Part 10A).

On 11 May 2022, the Dáil and Seanad approved Ireland's opt-in to a regulation amending the Annexes to the European Insolvency Regulation, 2015/848 (EIR Recast). Regulation 2021/2260 (Amending Regulation) which replaces Annex A and B to EIR Recast came into force in January 2022.

根据测算，截止2022年年初，国内烂尾项目规模已经超过2万亿，随着2021年大型房地产公司接连“暴雷”，势必会产生更多的烂尾或接近烂尾的项目。对于商业逻辑自洽的单体项目破产重组，借助破产清算或重整程序分兵突围势必成为地方政府主导重整的最优路径。但是鉴于目前的房地产市场行情以及烂尾项目续建的特点，大部分重整投资人，尤其是财务投资类型的重整投资人更倾向于采用固定收益的方式进行项目重整，既能实现维护稳定的社会效果，又能最大限度地保证投资安全。因此，如何在当前法律架构下保障固定收益重整投资人的利益是本文中讨论的主要问题。

一 重整投资人的收益模式对比

重整投资人参与烂尾项目的收益模式大致可以分为固定收益模式、风险收益模式和固定加风险收益模式。不同的收益模式下重整投资人有不同的投资逻辑，也有不同的退出模式。我们从投入、收益、风险以及安全性角度对固定收益模式与风险收益模式进行了比较。

（一）固定收益模式

固定收益模式的特点是重整投资人投入重整资金，约定固定收益率，在最终财产变现所得中优先收回投资本金及收益，项目剩余资产全部用于债权清偿。

根据全国人大常委会执法检查组关于检查企业破产法实施情况的报告，党的十八大以来，随着供给侧结构性改革持续深化，加快建立和完善市场主体挽救和退出机制，加之新冠肺炎疫情对于宏观经济运行的深刻影响，我国企业破产案件数量快速上升，2017年至2020年受理和审结的破产案件分别占到《企业破产法》实施以来案件总量的54%和41%。[1]区别于传统的中小企业破产重整，大型或超大型企业集团的资产结构复杂、债务规模巨大、历史遗留问题众多，进入破产重整程序之后，如何在《企业破产法》的框架下实现资产重组与债务清偿、持续运营与杠杆处置、重整效率与债权人保护等多重利益关系的合理平衡，成为破产实务中的难点与痛点。随着2021年B集团实质合并重整案（以下简称“B集团重整案”）和海航集团等三百二十一家公司实质合并重整案（以下简称“海航集团重整案”）中信托计划的引入，破产重整程序中引入信托计划作为新型破产重整模式引起业界关注。本文将结合笔者在破产重整程序中设立信托计划的服务经验，简要介绍破产重整程序中信托计划定位与架构、信托机制与破产重整程序的衔接等相关实务难点问题，以供参考。

一. 破产重整程序中信托计划的概念和优势

The Companies (Rescue Process for Small and Micro Companies) Bill 2021 (Bill) detailing the government's proposed rescue process for small and micro companies (SCARP) has successfully passed through the Oireachtas and is expected to be signed into law shortly by the President. The legislation will be commenced at a future date by the Minister.

Background

The European Union (Insurance and Reinsurance) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (2021 Regulations) will come into operation on 30 June 2021, giving effect to Directive (EU) 2019/2177 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2019 (2019 Directive).

The 2019 Directive amends the Solvency II Directive (2009/138/EC), the MiFID II Directive (2014/65/EU) and the 4th Anti-Money Laundering Directive (2015/849/EU).

In a recent High Court decision, a provisional liquidator was ordered to pay the costs of the official liquidator (who replaced the provisional liquidator and was appointed as the new liquidator of the company) and Revenue without being entitled to have recourse to the assets of the company.

The Examinership of Norwegian Air

Key Features

// C O R P O R AT E R E S T R U C T U R I N G & I N S O LV E N C Y

The Examinership of Norwegian Air Group Key Features

On 26 May 2021 Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA (NAS) and related companies (Norwegian Air) exited examinership in Ireland. Through the restructuring Norwegian Air:

raised NOK 6 billion (590 million) in new capital through share and hybrid debt offerings;

The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has published the outline of proposed legislation for a dedicated rescue and restructuring framework for insolvent or potentially insolvent small and micro companies – see here.

Background

In a recent High Court decision, it was ruled that the liquidator not only failed in his application before the court, but in bringing forward an application that was 'doomed to fail', the liquidator was acting negligently and breached his duty of care to the company as liquidator. As a result, the liquidator was held personally liable for the costs of the application.