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：
Brief Facts
INTRODUCTION
In yet another landmark decision in relation to the corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) of Jaypee Infratech Limited (JIL), the Supreme Court in Anuj Jain, Interim Resolution Professional for Jaypee Infratech Limited vs. Axis Bank Limited Etc. Etc. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8512-8527 of 2019) dated 26.02.2020, has laid down the law on two aspects:
➢ the essential elements of a preferential transaction under Section 43 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 (Code); and
The High Court decision in Re All Star Leisure (Group) Limited (2019), which confirmed the validity of an administration appointment by a qualified floating charge holder (QFCH) out of court hours by CE-Filing, will be welcomed.
The decision accepted that the rules did not currently provide for such an out of hours appointment to take place but it confirmed it was a defect capable of being cured and, perhaps more importantly, the court also stressed the need for an urgent review of the rules so that there is no doubt such an appointment could be made.
In certain circumstances, if a claim is proven, the defendant will be able to offset monies that are due to it from the claimant - this is known as set off.
Here, we cover the basics of set off, including the different types of set off and key points you need to know.
What is set off?
Where the right of set off arises, it can act as a defence to part or the whole of a claim.
In our update this month we take a look at some recent decisions that will be of interest to those involved in insolvency litigation. These include:
Creditor not obliged to take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security
On 11 October 2018, the Supreme Court (Court) vide its judgment in B.K. Educational Services Private Limited v Parag Gupta and Associates (Civil Appeal No. 23988 of 2017) clarified the applicability of Limitation Act, 1963 (Limitation Act) to the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code).
Background
No duty of care owed for negligent bank reference to undisclosed principal
The Supreme Court has held that a bank which negligently provided a favourable credit reference for one of its customers did not owe a duty of care to an undisclosed principal who acted on that reference.