一、中澳破产程序之差异概述
破产制度是一种集体性债务清偿程序，旨在帮助无法偿还债务的公司或个人解决财务困境，同时确保债权人能够获得公平的清偿。中国和澳大利亚破产制度差异很大，本文旨在高度总结两种法律体系下破产制度的主要区别。
在澳大利亚，关于企业破产的适用法律主要规定在澳大利亚《公司法》(Corporations Act 2001)第五章，主要包括接管程序（Receivership）、清算程序（Liquidation）以及自愿管理程序（Voluntary Administration）。而在我国2007年颁布的《企业破产法》中，则主要包含三个破产程序，即破产清算程序、和解程序以及重整程序。本文将从破产程序的启动标准以及适用情景两方面对中澳破产程序之差异进行简要分析。
（一）破产程序启动标准
1、澳大利亚《公司法》项下的破产程序启动
Limiting Liability of Administrators for Employee Wages
Walley IMO PGP Group (Aust) Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1554 ("PGP Group") and Crosbie IMO Godfreys Group Pty Ltd [2024] FCA 60 ("Godfreys")
Voluntary administrators have been able to seek orders releasing them from their personal liability for debts incurred by them in the course of conducting a company's business. That relief has been available where it has been necessary to support the continuing operation of that business.
Introduction
In Re Tucker, Quintis Leasing Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1673, the administrators of a company successfully obtained orders from the Federal Court modifying the operation of section 443B of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
Fiduciary Duties of Receivers
Receivers appointed to enforce a security owe their fiduciary duties to their appointor and not to the mortgagor. So, when realising the assets of the mortgagor, the receivers can focus their attention on pursuing that course of action which, as they judge it, is best calculated to optimise the position of their appointor; Salmon v Albarran [2023] NSWSC 1238 ("Salmon").
The Federal Court decision of Copeland in his capacity as liquidator of Skyworkers Pty limited (in Liquidation) (Skyworkers) v Murace [2023] FCA 14 stresses the importance of liquidators adequately particularising claims in a Statement of Claim (SOC). In particular, the liquidator in this case was unable to identify the specific dates that the debts were incurred and how these debts arose.
A Case Analysis of Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kent (No 2) [2023] FCA 1396
In Official Trustee in Bankruptcy v Kent [2023] FCA 1211 (“Principal Case“), the Court found that a bankrupt’s right to claim compensation through the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (“AFCA”) is personal to the bankrupt and that right cannot be assigned to the Trustee.
Despites its recent failure in case against an administrator in a phoenixing case, ASIC could snatch long-term victory from the jaws of defeat with clear regulatory guidance for insolvency practitioners.
A Case Analysis of Doctors of Optimization Pty Ltd v MPA Engineering Pty Ltd (Subsidiary of Aquatec Maxon Group Ltd) [2023] QCA 219
In the realm of corporate governance, addressing misconduct within a company becomes particularly critical when an insolvency practitioner is appointed. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) sheds light on the intricacies of this scenario, outlining key points for stakeholders to be aware of and steps to take.