当一张未支付的发票演变为无力偿债问题
When an Unpaid Invoice Becomes an Insolvency Problem
每一家企业都可能遇到未偿债务。货物已经交付，物业已经占用，服务已经提供，或者资金已经借出。付款期限届至，发票及催款通知接踵而来，但债务仍未得到清偿。
在斯里兰卡，当公司债务超过 50,000斯里兰卡卢比 时，在遵循法定程序的前提下，《2007年第7号公司法》赋予债权人公司法中最强有力的救济手段之一——清盘（winding up）。根据该法第271条，如果法定偿债要求在三周内仍未得到履行，该公司可被视为无力清偿其债务。从公司法的角度而言，清盘可谓一种“核选项”：其后果不再只是追讨一笔未偿债务，而可能直接导致该公司本身的终结。
Every business encounter unpaid debts. Goods are supplied, premises are occupied, services are performed or money is advanced. Payment falls due, invoices and reminders follow, but the debt remains unpaid.
In Sri Lanka, where a corporate debt exceeds Rs. 50,000.00, the Companies Act, No. 7 of 2007 provides a creditor, subject to the statutory procedure, with access to one of the most powerful remedies in company law: winding up. Under section 271, where the prescribed demand remains unsatisfied for three weeks, the company may be deemed unable to pay its debts. In corporate terms, winding up is the nuclear option: the consequence is no longer merely recovery of the debt, but potentially the end of the company itself.
法定偿债要求：启动“核选项”之前的警告信号
The Statutory Demand: The Warning Shot Before the Nuclear Option
在债权人能够全面启动法院的清盘管辖权之前，《公司法》规定了一项重要的前置机制：法定偿债要求（statutory demand）。它并非一封普通的付款催告函。若符合第271(a)条所规定的条件，而公司在三周内仍未履行该要求，则该公司可能被视为无力清偿其债务。从实际效果来看，法定偿债要求可以被理解为启动“核选项”之前的一记警告信号。
在这一阶段，保持沉默可能带来严重后果。如果债务公司既未履行该法定要求，也未提出真实存在的债务争议，那么该事项可能不再只是普通的债务追偿问题。一旦法定期限届满，公司可能被视为无力清偿债务，并因此面临司法清盘程序。
Before a creditor can invoke the full force of the winding-up jurisdiction, the Companies Act provides an important preliminary mechanism: the statutory demand. It is more than an ordinary letter requesting payment. Where the requirements of section 271(a) are satisfied, failure to comply with the demand for three weeks may result in the company being deemed unable to pay its debts. In practical terms, the statutory demand is the warning shot before the nuclear option.
At this point, silence can be dangerous. If the debtor company neither satisfies the demand nor raises a genuine dispute, the matter may cease to be an ordinary debt-recovery issue. Once the statutory period expires, the company may be deemed unable to pay its debts, exposing it to judicial winding-up proceedings.
Timing Is Everything: Genuine Dispute or Afterthought?
在清盘程序中，争议提出的时间可能至关重要，因为它有助于区分一项“真实争议（genuine dispute）”与一项仅在法定程序启动后才提出的争议。在整个商业关系存续期间一直被持续提出的争议，与在发票已经接受、付款已经承诺、债务人已经要求延期付款，甚至在法定偿债要求已经送达之后才突然出现的争议，显然处于不同的法律和事实基础之上。
In winding-up proceedings, timing can be critical because it may help distinguish a ‘genuine dispute’ from one raised only after the statutory process has begun. A dispute consistently maintained during the commercial relationship will naturally stand on a different footing from one which appears only after invoices were accepted, payment was promised, time was requested or a statutory demand was served.
因此，法院所关心的不仅仅是公司现在是否声称该债务存在争议，更重要的是：争议最初何时产生、以何种方式被提出，以及是否有当时形成的材料予以支持。 事件发展的时间顺序，加上相关的文件记录——例如电子邮件、发票、债务确认、延期付款请求、部分付款以及此前的往来函件——可能有助于法院判断该争议是否属于真正的、善意的（bona fide）争议，抑或只是为了抵制或拖延司法清盘程序而事后形成的抗辩。
The court is therefore concerned not merely with whether the company now says that the debt is disputed, but when the dispute first arose, how it was articulated, and whether it is supported by contemporaneous material. The chronology, read together with the document trail emails, invoices, acknowledgements, requests for time, part-payments and earlier correspondence may help reveal whether the dispute is bona fide or whether it has been formulated merely to resist or delay the judicial winding-up process.
结论
Conclusion
司法清盘之所以是一项强有力的法律救济，在于它能够使一笔未偿债务超越普通债务追偿的范畴，进入法院的无力偿债及清盘管辖领域。司法清盘不应被用来迫使公司支付一项确实存在真实争议的债务；但同样，仅在法定程序启动后才提出的所谓争议，也不应轻易被用来阻却清盘程序。归根结底，争议提出的时间、当事人在当时的行为以及完整的文件记录，均可能决定该争议究竟是真实存在，还是仅仅为了逃避司法清盘而提出。
Judicial winding up is a powerful remedy because it moves an unpaid debt beyond ordinary recovery and into the insolvency jurisdiction of the court. It should not be used to pressure a company over a genuinely disputed liability, but neither should a dispute raised only after the statutory process begins be allowed to defeat it. In the end, timing, contemporaneous conduct and the documentary trail may determine whether the dispute is genuine or merely an attempt to avoid judicial winding up.
Budwin I Siriwardena,
PhD Candidate, Xiamen University
Attorney-at-Law, Sri Lanka
Counsel at Farman J. Cassim Chambers.
【关于我们】
刘雪琪律师团队专注于中东北非跨境法律领域，围绕“中东北非跨境投资与商业落地”“跨境电商与贸易合规”“国际争议解决与跨境裁决执行” 三大模块提供全链条法律服务，依托对中东北非本土法律（含伊斯兰法）、国际规则的深度通晓及实战经验，助力中资企业安全出海、合规运营与权益保障。
一、中东北非跨境投资与商业落地模块
作为海丝域外法查明中心副主任、波兰孔子学院国际讲师，刘雪琪律师深耕中东北非跨境投资、公司并购、产业项目落地法律服务，覆盖医药健康、航运物流、贸易矿产、高端制造、石油勘探、房地产开发等核心行业。
团队为中企提供从主体设立（如阿布扎比石油勘探公司新设）、并购交易（如中国车企中东某国汽车SKD 生产线收购）、特殊权益获取（如沙特金属矿业勘探与开采权专项）、房地产开发（如沙特房产项目土地获取及施工建设）到跨境融资（如某银行跨境融资项目）的全流程支持，累计服务中资企业出海落地项目超50 项，业务版图覆盖沙特、阿联酋、阿曼、卡塔尔等中东主要经济体，确保企业在当地合规扎根。
二、跨境电商与贸易合规模块
聚焦中东跨境电商与国际贸易合规痛点，团队输出《沙特清关制度解析：进口商必知的关键流程与合规要求》《沙特保税区法律框架与全球投资机遇— 国际条约、本土政策及战略建议解析》《中企出海 — 中企如何面对沙特阿拉伯之商业代理难题》等专业研究成果超 10 篇，并发布《中东跨境电商法律雷区与合规通关全地图》实战指引。
团队为数十家跨境电商、国际贸易企业提供常年法律顾问服务，处理近百项非诉合规项目，涵盖海关清关（如沙特吉达港红海战争货物清关专项）、港口纠纷（如卡塔尔Hamad 港货物滞期费、阿曼索哈港货物留置跨境争议）、本土合规（如沙特电商法、VAT 税务合规、产品认证合规）等核心需求，帮助企业规避 “卡关”“税务踩坑” 等风险。
三、国际争议解决与跨境裁决执行模块
依托新加坡国际仲裁中心（SIAC）学员资质及丰富实战经验，团队擅长处理涉中东北非的高端国际商事与跨境争议，涵盖跨境货款追债（如中企沙特货款追债，涉中国法、沙特法、伊斯兰法交叉适用）、船舶租约纠纷、货物滞期费争议、知识产权侵权及不正当竞争纠纷等类型，涉及诉讼、仲裁、执行及全争议解决程序。
文字｜刘雪琪
编辑｜鲁亦莛