“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
In the recent case of Re LYHFL Limited [2023] EWHC 2585 (Ch), the High Court has considered the proper interpretation of paragraph 12(1)(b), Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, by which directors can apply to court for an order putting the company into administration.
Drawing on previous authorities concerning this and similar provisions, the Court concluded that an individual director has no power to make such an application without the approval of the majority of the company's directors and a valid board resolution.
Facts
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
庭外债务重组，是指对陷入债务困境的债务人在避免完全的司法干预情形下，依靠企业自身与债权人、投资人进行谈判，最大限度地减少成本，改变其资产和债务构成或结构的一种债权债务整体调整活动，这种调整活动着眼于企业整体性系统调整，包括对债务人的业务重组、资产重组、管理重组、债务重组等。其中，业务重组主要围绕主业经营，不断提升巩固核心竞争力，进一步挖掘主业业务资产价值；资产重组主要聚焦企业主营业务，对非主业资产实施瘦身，最大限度实现企业资产重组价值的释放；管理重组主要优化企业治理结构，调整决策和监督职权范围，实现各方对资产处置和经营发展的共同管控，缓释信任风险；债务重组主要在管理重组、资产重组、业务重组的基础上，可以充分运用延期、降息、以物抵债、以股抵债等债务重组工具，实现企业整体债务风险化解。
Singapore’s highest court has definitively held that foreign insolvency, restructuring or liquidation proceedings concerning solvent companies should be recognised in Singapore (Re Ascentra Holdings, Inc (in official liquidation) v SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32), overturning a first instance decision taking the contrary view.
It’s not the first occasion that a major serviced office provider has landed in a corporate restructuring but it may be the most high-profile. The current evolving situation follows on from such previous fireworks as the failed IPO, a corporate reorganisation that swapped a US headco “inc.“ for an “LLC” (prompting litigation at the end of the last decade), and continuing market uncertainty as to the robustness of the brand.
The UK Government's abandonment of the case will come as a relief to non-executive directors who feared being held to unrealistic standards
The Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, commenced disqualification proceedings against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc in January 2021, following the compulsory liquidation of the Carillion Group in January 2018. Last month on the eve of trial, the IS discontinued its disqualification proceedings against the NEDs.
The Insolvency Service (IS), acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, commenced disqualification proceedings against five former non-executive directors (NEDs) of Carillion plc in January 2021, following the compulsory liquidation of the Carillion Group in January 2018. Last month on the eve of trial, the IS discontinued its disqualification proceedings against the NEDs.
Where a winding up petition is based on a debt arising from a contract with a non-Hong Kong exclusive jurisdiction clause, the court will tend to dismiss or stay the winding up petition in favour of the parties’ agreed forum unless there are strong countervailing factors.