2019年6月17日，中央国债登记结算有限责任公司(以下简称“中央结算公司”)发布《中央结算公司担保品违约处置业务指引(试行)》，银行间市场清算所股份有限公司(以下简称“上海清算所”）发布《银行间市场清算所股份有限公司债券回购违约处置业务实施细则(试行)》和《银行间市场清算所股份有限公司回购债券拍卖处置业务实施细则(试行)》，以及全国银行间同业拆借中心(以下简称“同业拆借中心”)发布《全国银行间同业拆借中心回购违约处置实施细则(试行)》(前述文件以下统称为“违约处置新规”，三家机构统称为“处置机构”)，共同构建及明确银行间债券市场的债券违约处置新制度，开创银行间债券市场债券快速处置新阶段。

处置新规的发布，立即引发了境内外市场参与者的密切关注以及对相关问题的深入探讨。6月20日，中央结算公司及同业拆借中心也分别通过中国债券信息网(www.chinabond.com.cn)和微信公众号“CfetsOnline发布” 进一步发布了关于违约处置新规的答疑。

基于对违约处置新规的解读以及我们与相关市场参与者的讨论，我们拟通过本文做一些初步梳理、探讨和展望。

为创新经济发展模式、扩大对外开放力度，国家设立大湾区并着力将其打造为充满活力的世界级城市群和内地与港澳深度合作示范区。从定位不难看出，实行充分的市场经济和法治经济，为全国经济发展提供新的引擎和全新的模式，无疑是粤港澳大湾区的重要使命。要完成这一神圣使命，离不开破产重整制度。通过破产重整，挽救那些一时陷入财务困境和经营困境的企业，从而为湾区经济健康发展保驾护航。SX公司通过破产重整涅槃重生，就是破产重整制度保驾护航的典型案例。

一、企业初探：破产重整的机遇与挑战

1、SX公司基本情况

SX公司成立于1981年，于1994年在深交所上市，总股本约35000万股，其中流通股18000万股，限售流通股17000万股。

SX公司控股或参股四家实业公司，分别为科技公司、实业公司、饲料公司和西部公司。

2、SX公司重整受理情况

因不能清偿到期债务，经债权人饲料公司申请，深圳市中级人民法院（下称深圳中院）于2009年11月10日裁定SX公司进入重整程序，并指定北京市金杜（深圳）律师事务所担任管理人。

In recent years, the Hong Kong courts have been required to deal with a significant number of cases concerning cross border insolvency. Most notably, a number of cases have arisen where insolvency practitioners appointed by overseas courts seek recognition of their authority to act on behalf of overseas companies placed in liquidation or a similar insolvency regime, and to seek authority to use powers equivalent to those granted to liquidators by the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (Cap.

For some time now, there has been uncertainty in Australian insolvency law about whether or not insolvency practitioners should apply the statutory priority regimes established by sections 433, 566 and 561 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) when distributing the assets of a “trading trust”. The decision of the New South Wales Supreme Court in Re Independent Contractor Services (Aust) Pty Ltd (In liq) [No 2] (2016) 305 FLR 222, and the myriad of cases that followed it, suggested that the answer was “no”.

Australia’s corporate insolvency laws are in a process of significant change.

The latest proposed reform concerns the controversial practice of “phoenixing”. In recent months and years, phoenixing has attracted attention from a wide band of Australian regulators.

The Phoenixing Bill

In Re Kin Ming Toy Manufactory Ltd (in liquidation), HCCW 402/2015 [2018] HKCFI 2057 and 2285, Harris J of the Court of First Instance dismissed an application under section 182 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance (the Ordinance), Cap. 32, brought by the liquidators of a company in liquidation seeking to void two payments made out of the company’s bank account after commencement of the winding up proceedings, and further ordered that the liquidators be held personally liable for the costs of the unsuccessful application.

Key Facts

Overview

The perception of Australia as a relatively “risky” place to sit on a board, arises in no small part from the insolvent trading prohibition in section 588G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and how it interacts with general directors’ duties.[1]

Administration and deeds of company arrangement have continued to have significant influence on major restructurings in the Australian market. In larger restructurings, administrations represent significant transactions where capital is deployed strategically to acquire businesses at significant discounts. A sound understanding of the procedures is key to private equity players for many reasons. Portfolio companies can be exposed to administrations where suppliers, customers or competitors experience financial difficulties.

The dialogue is changing yet is the law enabling the practical change Directors need?

Achieving significant cultural shift in any business environment is no easy task, so it’s by no means ground-breaking to declare that after 1 year in operation, it still cannot be said that the new “Safe Harbour” legislation has resulted in a cultural change among directors.

In the past couple of decades, jurisdictions all over the world have been required to grapple with problems arising out of corporate insolvencies with cross-border elements. Solving these problems has required considerable judicial flexibility and innovation, but judges in some jurisdictions have been helped by the enactment of legislation designed to deal with cross-border status.