一、问题的提出

企业破产程序中的债权清偿顺位，除按照《企业破产法》第113条规定的一般清偿顺位进行分配外，对于现行特别部门法对应的特殊行业企业破产程序中存在的特殊债权类型，有例外的债权清偿顺位适用空间。涉船企业破产即是其中的一种特殊类型企业破产，本文所称的涉船企业破产为广义概念，包括不限于传统航运公司、单船公司、船舶海工企业、船舶建造与维保企业等等，对应的多是涉及船舶相关的争议解决根据民事案由规定应由海事法院专属管辖类型的适格主体，以上企业在本文统称为涉船企业。之所以涉船企业破产作为企业破产的特殊类型之一，盖其原因是由于涉船企业在实体上还受制于《海商法》等的约束、在程序上还受制于《海事诉讼特别程序法》等的约束。

涉船企业破产在债权类型和债权清偿顺位上，区别于一般企业破产的最大不同在于，除根据企业破产法规定的常见债权类型和顺位清偿外，《海商法》第21条和第22条规定的船舶优先权这一特殊权利类型在涉船企业破产中如何定性、如何定位、如何实现、如何规制的问题，至今仍然是一个争议不绝的问题，尚待明确、统一司法适用标准。

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.

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.

摘 要

从法律性质上看，管理人在破产程序中可行使的撤销权分为两类，其一是根据企业破产法第31条规定，对于欺诈行为的撤销；其二是根据企业破产法第32条规定，对于在破产程序开始前六个月内个别清偿行为的撤销。出于平衡全体债权人与个别债权人之间的利益冲突，第32条以但书形式规定了“个别清偿使债务人财产受益的除外”之个别清偿撤销例外，以避免个别清偿撤销权的滥用。但管理人与债权人常常产生冲突，管理人往往通过撤销权诉讼在依法履行勤勉义务的同时谋求可分配财产的最大化，债权人则常以个别清偿撤销例外作为抗辩理由以避免交易回转。由于我国现行法律是通过“列举+兜底”的模式对个别清偿撤销例外进行规定，因此对于个别清偿撤销例外的边界并不清晰，需要通过梳理部分司法裁判观点，为厘清个别清偿撤销例外的边界提供一些思考。

关键词：

企业破产法 撤销权 管理人 破产程序 

民法典 个别清偿

This article was first published in December 2023 by Law360.

English schemes of arrangement have long been used to restructure the debts of both English and foreign companies. This has made the UK a center of cross-border restructurings.

The scheme's more powerful cousin, the restructuring plan, with its ability to cram down entire classes of dissenting creditors, has bolstered the UK's position in the global restructuring market.

Introduction

The first stage in any restructuring by way of a scheme of arrangement in the Cayman Islands involves meetings of such classes of creditors or shareholders (as the case may be) to consider, and if thought fit, approve the terms of the scheme. An application to Court is required for orders to be granted for convening such meetings. If, at these meetings, the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied, the second stage involves obtaining Court sanction for the proposed scheme to become effective.

Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands all have legislation that enables a company to present a scheme of arrangement to restructure its debts.

One of the defining features of a scheme of arrangement carried out under the relevant legislation in each jurisdiction is the ability to cram down dissenting creditors or members (or classes of them, as the case may be) if the requisite statutory majorities are satisfied and Court sanction of the proposed scheme is obtained.

In the final statistics release of this year, the Insolvency Service confirmed that there were 2,466 registered company insolvencies in November 2023 (the December figures will be released early in 2024). Not only was this 21% higher than in the previous November, but 7% higher than the figures in October 2023.

The company insolvencies in November 2023 included:

Muss die Geschäftsführung in der Krise die Belange der Gläubiger stets vorrangig vor den Gesellschafterinteressen („shift of fiduciary duties“) behandeln?

Go-To Guide: