2025年9月12日，十四届全国人大常委会第十七次会议对《中华人民共和国企业破产法（修订草案）》进行了审议，并向全社会公布了修订草案稿，向全社会公开征求意见。这部备受瞩目、可称得上是国家经济晴雨表的重要法律，在历经超过十八年实施和司法实践检验的风风雨雨后，终于迎来了立法上的第一次修订。回首2007年6月1日生效施行以来，我国《企业破产法》历经十八年的破产司法实践，可以说是从十八年前的“儿童节”呱呱坠地到现在十八年后已经“长大成人”，承载的是破产立法者、司法者、执法者、管理人以及所有参与到破产司法实践中的广大债权人、债务人及投资人的冀望和期许，本次修订意义重大。
纵观本次破产法修订草案，从原《企业破产法》共13章136条，到现《修订草案》共16章216条，修改、删除、新增条款多达160余条，修订条文比例超过70%，条文调整幅度不可谓不大。纵观法律条文变化，新增了大量新概念、新制度，制度创新力度不可谓不大。笔者结合多年来担任破产管理人、破产债权人的代理人、破产债务人及其股东的代理人、重整投资人专项顾问等破产实务经验，对《企业破产法（修订草案）》进行了研读，站在破产司法实践的视角尝试进行实践解读并展开思考。
一、对《企业破产法（修订草案）》的整体解读
Winding-up proceedings are draconian and can lead to a company’s demise. For this reason the insolvency legislation stipulates that service of a winding up petition cannot take place by post, but instead must be personally delivered to a company’s registered office address.
In insolvency and liquidation proceedings, the question regularly arises of how competing creditor claims should be satisfied. Of particular importance is the treatment of employee claims, as legislators typically seek to ensure their special protection. Hungarian insolvency law addresses this concern by granting certain employee claims a privileged ranking.
When do employee claims take precedence over other creditors?
The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (“Supreme Court”), in the case of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd. vs. Adhunik Meghalaya Steels Pvt. Ltd.1, held that entries in a company’s balance sheet acknowledging outstanding borrowings constitute a valid acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (“Limitation Act”), even if the creditor is not specifically named within the balance sheet.
Standard Profil’s scheme of arrangement was sanctioned by the English High Court on 9 September 2025, notwithstanding a recent Frankfurt court decision casting doubt on whether English restructuring plans and schemes of arrangement proposed by German companies would be capable of sanction by the English courts going forward as a result of recognition issues (see ‘More on this topic’).
The Insolvency and Companies Court, in A Company -v- Visionary Future LLC & ors. (unreported), has dismissed an application by a company seeking to strike out, or alternatively restrain advertisement of, a winding-up petition brought by creditors. The judgment underlines the critical importance of providing proper and substantiated evidence in insolvency proceedings.
Lewis Silkin acted for the petitioners (the respondents in the application), who have since been successful in winding up the company in question.
Inthe matter of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] NSWSC 993, the New South Wales Supreme Court found Mr Azizi to be a de facto director of Trinco (NSW) Pty Ltd (in liq) (Trinco) and liable for insolvent trading. Trinco’s liquidator was awarded compensation, payable by Mr Azizi.
Introduction
Introduction
Equity of Exoneration and Joint Liability: Insights from Armstrong & Anor v Harrow [2025] EWHC 1790 (Ch)
On 18 July 2025, ICC Judge Mullen handed down judgment in Armstrong & Anor v Harrow [2025] EWHC 1790 (Ch) denying Mrs Harrow’s claim for an equity of exoneration to keep the full proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home.
Key Points: