杨鹿君. 上市公司破产重整与财务类强制退市制度协同研究J. 证券市场导报, 2026, (6): 36-47, 70.
引用本文: 杨鹿君. 上市公司破产重整与财务类强制退市制度协同研究J. 证券市场导报, 2026, (6): 36-47, 70.
Yang Lujun. Coordinating the Bankruptcy Reorganization and Financial Compulsory Delisting Systems for Listed CompaniesJ. Securities Market Herald, 2026, (6): 36-47, 70.
Citation: Yang Lujun. Coordinating the Bankruptcy Reorganization and Financial Compulsory Delisting Systems for Listed CompaniesJ. Securities Market Herald, 2026, (6): 36-47, 70.

上市公司破产重整与财务类强制退市制度协同研究

Coordinating the Bankruptcy Reorganization and Financial Compulsory Delisting Systems for Listed Companies

  • 摘要: 在绩差上市公司规制中,破产重整与财务类强制退市两项制度如何有效衔接,形成合力尤为重要。注册制改革之前,我国资本市场存在“退市难”现象,部分绩差公司在面临退市压力时,借助破产重整实现“保壳”。注册制改革从制度上大幅削弱了上市公司“壳”资源的稀缺性与虚拟价值,大幅削弱了企业通过破产重整保壳的动机,财务类强制退市制度进入常态化运行。然而,破产重整与财务类强制退市制度仍存在一定的制度定位误认、适用标准交叉与程序衔接空白,“忽悠式重整”“重整后仍退市”等现象仍有发生。针对上述问题,应引导两项制度走向具体、可操作的协同治理:第一,细化适用标准,明确重整价值不得包含“壳”价值,仅具有持续经营能力的“诚实而不幸”的公司方可适用重整;第二,优化启动机制,建立重整申请前的“预沟通”制度与监管分层意见征询模式,降低程序启动门槛;第三,提升重整质量,法院对重整计划进行实质性审查;第四,构建衔接容错机制,切断“保壳”动机。上述措施可降低制度成本,实现绩差上市公司出清的制度有效协同。

     

    Abstract: In the regulation of underperforming listed companies, effectively coordinating the two systems of bankruptcy reorganization and financial compulsory delisting so as to form a synergy is of particular importance. Prior to the registration-based reform, China's capital market suffered from the phenomenon of "delisting difficulty", whereby certain underperforming companies, when confronted with delisting pressure, resorted to bankruptcy reorganization to achieve "shell preservation". The registration-based reform has institutionally and substantially weakened the scarcity and notional value of listed companies' "shell" resources, significantly diminishing firms' incentive to preserve their listing status through bankruptcy reorganization, while the financial-indicator-based mandatory delisting regime has entered normalized operation. Nevertheless, certain problems persist between the bankruptcy reorganization and financial compulsory delisting systems, including the misapprehension of their institutional positioning, the overlap of applicable standards, and gaps in procedural articulation; phenomena such as "sham reorganization" and "delisting despite reorganization" continue to occur. In response to the foregoing problems, the two systems should be guided toward concrete and operable collaborative governance. First, the applicable standards should be refined to make clear that reorganization value must not encompass "shell" value, and that only companies possessing going-concern capacity, that is, those that are "honest but unfortunate", may be eligible for reorganization. Second, the initiation mechanism should be optimized by establishing a "pre-communication" system prior to the reorganization application and a tiered regulatory opinion-solicitation model, thereby lowering the threshold for procedural initiation. Third, the quality of reorganization should be enhanced through substantive judicial review of the reorganization plan by the courts. Fourth, a coordination and fault-tolerance mechanism should be constructed to eliminate the incentive for "shell preservation". The above measures can reduce institutional costs and achieve effective institutional coordination in clearing out underperforming listed companies.

     

/

返回文章
返回