引言

按照《中华人民共和国企业破产法》（“《企业破产法》”）第三十二条[1]规定，管理人有权起诉请求法院撤销破产企业在一定期间内的个别清偿行为。债权人在面对该类个别清偿撤销诉讼时，时常面临举证困难、法律适用不明确等困境。

我们近期代理某金融机构债权人处理一宗个别清偿纠纷诉讼二审程序。本文将尝试结合这一案件，提出我们对上述法律规定的思考，讨论债权人应对个别清偿撤销诉讼的“困境”与“突围”，并且为债权人提供缓释该类纠纷带来的潜在风险的思路。

一、债权人应对个别清偿撤销纠纷的困境

为充实破产企业偿债资产、维护债权人公平受偿，《企业破产法》赋予管理人针对债务人破产前一定期间内特定行为的撤销权。本文关注的是《企业破产法》第三十二条指向的债务人在破产申请受理前6个月内的个别清偿行为，或称“偏颇性清偿行为”。依照该条规定，撤销该类行为需要满足以下条件：

FT ENE Canada Inc. (“FECI”) was in the nanofibre business, and was a wholly owned subsidiary of Finetex ENE Inc. (“Finetex”). As a result of insolvency difficulties separate and apart from the Canadian business, Finetex was engaged in bankruptcy proceedings in Korea (its home jurisdiction). There was animosity between Finetex and the director of FECI.

The Defendant was a dentist who had executed a personal guarantee on July 7, 2011 in favour of the Plaintiff (the "Bank") in order to secure payment of the indebtedness of the Defendant's professional corporation. The Bank made a demand for payment on the guarantee, and subsequently brought an action against the Defendant (the "First Action").The Bank was successful on a motion for summary judgment and judgment was granted against the Defendant.

Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("AP Inc.") and Aralez Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc. ("APC Inc.") (collectively, the "Applicants") brought an application to the Ontario Superior Court under the CCAA concurrently with a United States Chapter 11 proceeding brought by affiliated entities. the Applicants. desired a managed liquidation process.

The Applicants entered into three stalking horse agreements for approximately $240 million. This compared to the secured claim of $275 million of the major secured creditors of the Applicants.

One of the most delicate balancing acts that the Courts are asked to perform in Canada is balancing all of the disparate and competing interests in an insolvency process. The Ontario Court of Appeal was asked to review one iteration of this balancing act in Reciprocal Opportunities Incorporated v.

In Royal Bank of Canada v. A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. the Court was asked to determine the priority of claims in a bankruptcy between Royal Bank of Canada (the "Bank"), a secured creditor of the bankrupt, A-1 Asphalt Maintenance Ltd. ("A-1") and The Guarantee Company of North America (the "GCNA") a bond company that paid out 20 lien claims and was subrogated to those rights under the Construction Lien Act ("CLA").

In Royal Bank of Canada v. Casselman, three motions were brought before the Court. First, a continuation of a motion for approval and directions brought by the receiver. Second, a motion to allow counsel for the debtor to withdraw as lawyer of record. Third, a motion by the Sexton Group Ltd.