近年来，预重整已成为上市公司进入司法重整前几乎不可或缺的前置环节，其源于本土需求、服务于纾困实践的兴起路径，彰显了市场对高效挽救机制的迫切期待。然而，在立法规则尚属空白、实践探索快速扩张的背景下，该制度正面临深刻的异化趋势：预重整作为解决重整效率瓶颈与确定性风险而诞生的“辅助工具”，当其价值被证明有效后，迅速从“可选项”变成“默认项”，几乎成为上市公司重整的必经之路，其功能从“预先协商桥梁”偏移为“实质工作前置”，进而引致临时管理人角色模糊、权责失衡、企业拯救成本攀升等一系列结构性困境。基于对这一市场趋势的密切关注与忧思，本文聚焦于制度逻辑的完整性、各方权责利的平衡性以及程序正义的可实现性，将依次追溯制度的生成逻辑，呈现规则图谱的留白现状，解剖功能偏移衍生的核心痛点，并最终尝试提出使预重整回归其商业谈判本质、约束于重整前协商程序的路径展望。笔者深信，唯有正视当前实践中的张力与悖论，方能推动这一重要企业风险纾困工具的行稳致远，真正实现其提升困境企业重生效率与公平的初心。
一、制度起源：中国本土语境下的生成逻辑与“生存突围”
The Supreme Court of India ('Court') in UV Asset Reconstruction Company Limited v. Electrosteel Castings Limited, Civil Appeal No. 9701/2024, has delivered a critical judgment clarifying the legal boundaries between a Deed of Undertaking and a Contract of Guarantee under Section 126 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (‘Act’). The Court's decision underscores that mere commercial nomenclature and internal funding arrangements do not satisfy the rigorous legal requirements of a guarantee.
Factual Background
Declaring bankruptcy for a Limited Liability Company (LLC) in the UAE entails several legal, financial, and commercial consequences that affect the company itself, its partners, creditors, and the overall market. The most prominent effects include:
Freezing of Assets and Accounts: Upon the issuance of a bankruptcy judgment, the company's assets are frozen and placed under the management of a Bankruptcy Trustee, for the purpose of liquidation or restructuring in favor of the creditors.
Introduction
The Court of Appeal in Desa Tiasa Sdn Bhd v CME Group Bhd & Anor [2025] MLJU 4345 (“Desa Tiasa“) has clarified an important point of law on the standing of unsecured creditors in judicial management (“JM“) proceedings. It has confirmed that unsecured creditors have no right to intervene or to be heard in an application for a judicial management order (“JMO“), unless such right is expressly provided for by statute or subsidiary legislation.
Our specialists explain what director disqualification is, the consequences of it and the Insolvency Service’s investigations into a director’s conduct of an insolvent company.
Company directors have legal duties and responsibilities when dealing with the affairs of a company.
<br>
The High Court has handed down its judgment in a preliminary issues trial in Yodel Delivery Network Ltd v Corlett & Ors on 19 December 2025, dismissing counterclaims by Shift Global Holdings Ltd (Shift) and Corja Holdings Ltd (Corja) for specific performance of purported share warrant rights, which they had said entitled them to more than 54% of Yodel’s issued share capital in the battle for control of the home delivery company.
CASE BRIEF
Case Name: Sri Lakshmi Hotel Pvt. Limited & Anr vs Sriram City Union Finance Ltd & Anr.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 13785 of 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 1327
Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Hon’ble Mr. Justice, K.V. Viswanathan
Date: 18 November 2025
1. FACTUAL MATRIX
In the recent case of Mitchell and another (Joint Liquidators of MBI International & Partners Inc (In Liquidation)) v Sheikh Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber [2025] UKSC 43, the UK Supreme Court clarified the scope of fiduciary duties owed by directors and controllers of companies following the commencement of liquidation. The Court determined that a director whose statutory powers have ceased may still owe fiduciary duties if he purports to exercise authority over the company’s assets and intermeddles with them dishonestly.
ARBITRATION
Date: 09 December, 2025
Case Name: Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. BCL Secure Premises Pvt. Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 14647 of 2025
Forum: Supreme Court
核心要点
在Novabrite Lighting Sdn Bhd v Emrail Sdn Bhd（Balaranee Construction，介入人）[2025] 11 MLJ 275一案中，高庭明确表示，法庭不会允许欠债人以司法管理作为战术手段，来阻挠债权人执行行动，而非真诚地推进公司重整。高庭以滥用诉讼程序为由驳回司法管理申请，并认可债权人在司法管理触动自动暂缓令期间提交的清盘申请，同时作出把关令，规定日后任何新的司法管理申请均须先取得法庭许可方可提出。
此外，高庭亦强调《2016年公司法》下的法定前置条件必须被严格遵守；反复依赖自动暂缓令本身亦可能构成滥用诉讼程序，并且法院将主动干预, 即便是自行行使职权（ex proprio motu），以防司法管理机制被“武器化”对付债权人。
A. 背景事实
Balaranee Construction 是 Emrail Sdn Bhd 的无担保债权人，其债权来源于未支付的劳务费用。当Emrail 未能按约定还款后，Balaranee 发出了法定通知，并随后提呈清盘申请。