Chinese Enterprise continued from page 15 conscious effort to balance procedural economy with the preservation of viable small businesses. Enterprise group insolvency The draft amendment introduces, for the first time, a statutory framework for enterprise group insolvency, establishing a dual-track regime of substantive consolidation and procedural coordination. Substantive consolidation is permitted where affiliated enterprises exhibit severe commingling of legal personality, assets, or liabilities, such that separation is impracticable and creditor equality would otherwise be seriously impaired, or where group structures were established for fraudulent purposes. Upon application by eligible stakeholders, courts may order consolidation, resulting in the pooling of assets, extinguishment of inter-company claims, and unified creditor distribution. Jurisdiction, notice, hearing, and review procedures are expressly regulated, enhancing procedural certainty and creditor protection.
Where the stringent conditions for substantive consolidation are not met, the new draft authorises procedural coordination of affiliated enterprises. Under this mechanism, legal personality, asset separation, and inter-company claims are preserved, while courts may coordinate jurisdiction, timelines, and hearings, and allow single or coordinated reorganisation plans. Creditors vote and receive distributions on an entity-by-entity basis, with safeguards against abuse of related-party claims. This calibrated approach enables courts to address complex group cases without resorting to over-inclusive consolidation. Financial Institution Insolvency Recent financial sector failures exposed the limitations of China’ s fragmented insolvency framework for financial institutions. In response, the new draft creates a dedicated chapter governing the insolvency of a broad range of institutions, including banks, insurers, securities firms, trust companies, asset management companies, and non-bank payment institutions.
Under this regime, bankruptcy proceedings may be initiated either when statutory insolvency criteria are met or when competent financial regulators determine that regulatory requirements have been breached. In most cases, prior regulatory approval is required before judicial proceedings may commence. The resulting framework reflects a hybrid model in which administrative supervision and judicial procedures are closely integrated, underscoring the public interest dimension of financial institution insolvency.
Cross-Border Insolvency and International Implications
The 2006 EBL addressed cross-border insolvency in a single, highly general provision. The draft amendment represents a major departure by devoting an entire chapter to the subject. Chapter 14 sets out rules on jurisdiction, recognition and assistance of foreign insolvency proceedings, coordination of parallel proceedings, and the ranking of claims involving foreign creditors. It also addresses distribution coordination through the“ hotchpot rule” and confirms the primacy of applicable international treaties.
While the draft does not adopt the UNCI- TRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, it reflects selective convergence. Both regimes permit foreign creditor participation and recognise the standing of foreign insolvency representatives. At the same time, the draft retains reciprocity requirements, allows the opening of local proceedings based on the“ closest connection” principle, and prioritises domestic statutory claims in distributions. Recognition remains subject to public policy and domestic creditor protection considerations, indicating a cautious and sovereignty-sensitive approach to cross-border cooperation.
continued on page 38
37