上市公司重整是重整领域的风向标，由于其衔接了资本市场和破产制度两大重要领域，且上市公司具有公众性、公开性和稀缺性等特点，因此受到了广泛的关注，可谓是重整皇冠上的一颗明珠。自《中华人民共和国企业破产法》实施至今，共计103家上市公司实施了重整，其中最近四年的重整案例数量占据了总量的半壁江山并呈现出新的特点，同时亦产生诸多前沿法律问题并在一定程度上推动了现行重整制度和证券监管政策的变革和调整。

一、近年上市公司重整所呈现的特点

1. 顶层政策明确支持。2020年，国务院在《关于进一步提高上市公司质量的意见》中，明确提出“支持上市公司通过并购重组、破产重整等方式出清风险”。在实务中，近年来证监会对上市公司重整受理的审查政策适度宽松。主要表现在证监会对于上市公司违规担保、资金占用等问题，有条件地允许其在重整程序之中解决，而此前证监会原则上要求上市公司在进入重整前解决此类问题，致使很多存在违规问题的上市公司对重整脱困之路只能“望洋兴叹”。

Banks often take security for the loans they advance – doing so gives them some additional protection if a borrower fails to repay the loan when due. Where the borrower is a company, that security can take the form of a mortgage, a security assignment, a pledge, lien, or a charge. In this short article, we explain what a charge is and the differences between a fixed and floating charge.

But firstly, what is a charge?

The High Court has approved the sale of a portfolio of securities owned by Sova Capital Limited (Sova) to an unsecured creditor in consideration of the release of that creditor’s claim. The court’s approval of the transaction in this case marks the first reported decision on an unsecured credit bid for the assets of a company in administration (Re Sova Capital Limited (in special administration) [2023] EWHC 452 (Ch)).

Facts

山东胜通集团股份有限公司（以下简称“胜通集团”）债券信息披露违法案是证监会2021年证监稽查20起典型违法案例之一，相关中介机构均被行政处罚，备受资本市场关注。日前，青岛市中级人民法院（下称“青岛中院”）对“胜通债”虚假陈述诉讼案作出一审判决。

本案系北京金融法院“大连机床”判例后债券虚假陈述诉讼领域的又一经典判例，一审判决诸多亮点值得点赞：（1）新《证券法》实施后全国法院首例认定债券虚假陈述造成的债券投资损失应为投资差额损失而非债券票面本息；（2）全国法院首例在债券虚假陈述案件中剔除系统风险和非系统风险所致债券投资损失；（3）充分考察债券价格、交易量变化，突破性地认定发行人“澄清公告”发布日为揭露日；（4）创新性地认定案涉债券市场并非有效市场，应以破产清偿金额来确定债券基准价。

该案判决对债券虚假陈述投资损失的认定，标志着我国债券虚假陈述损失的司法认定思路已开始理性回归“损害填平”的侵权责任本质。此外，该案判决对债券虚假陈述揭露日和基准价方面的认定，进一步丰富了人民法院审理债券虚假陈述专业性问题的实践，积累了宝贵经验，具有相当的前沿性和示范性。

Cryptocurrency is a hot topic in the legal industry and one with which the legal world is really just starting to grapple. This is ever more prevalent with a number of recent high-profile crypto insolvencies including Three Arrows Capital, Celsius Network and FTX.

Today’s statistics reveal a stark reality that insolvencies are continuing to climb in the face of record levels inflation, increasing interest rates and an ongoing cost-of-living crisis, which is pushing businesses to breaking point. The situation is exacerbated by the lack of any new government support for businesses, which are particularly affected by the steep rise in energy costs.

Wind the clock back a couple of years to (dare I mention it…) the Covid-19 pandemic, and insolvency practitioners were getting mildly giddy about a new development in the form of a standalone moratorium. Slotting in at the forefront of the Insolvency Act 1986 courtesy of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 (CIGA), the moratorium was designed to give companies a breathing space to find a solution to their troubles when insolvency was knocking on their door.

Amidst the cost of living crisis, businesses are folding in record numbers, with barely a week passing without news of a big company casualty. Paperchase is the latest retailer to collapse into administration, with the business being snapped up by Tesco for sale in its superstores and 820 jobs reportedly at risk. So how can we identify the businesses that are in the danger zone and could be heading for insolvency?

1. Profit warnings

中伦观点

引言

在执行案件中，多个债权人争夺同一被执行人财产的情形并不罕见。在“僧多粥少”的情况下，债权人能否分配到财产以及能分配到多少财产往往取决于债权人是否采取了恰当的措施。由于执行相关法律法规较为繁杂，为了更好地阐述法律观点，本文我们将通过一个真实案件改编的模拟案例对执行程序中财产分配涉及实务问题逐一展开分析。

模拟案例引入

2018年，甲公司向乙公司出借2亿元用于经营，双方签订《抵押合同》约定乙公司将其名下A和B两处不动产抵押给甲公司，抵押范围包括乙公司欠甲公司的借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用。双方办理了抵押登记。因种种原因，两处不动产的登记簿登记显示抵押的债权数额分别为1000万元。后因乙公司无法到期偿还借款，甲公司向Y市法院起诉要求乙公司返回借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用并同时申请查分了乙公司名下C、D和E三处不动产。Y市法院判决乙公司偿还上述所有款项。

While many businesses (particularly in the retail, leisure and hospitality industries) will have been hoping to capitalise on a busy festive period, sadly for many the busy period came too late as corporate insolvencies rose again in December. Overall, company insolvencies were 32% higher than December 2021, and 76% higher than in December 2019 (i.e.