引言

在当今国际国内供应链债务违约增多的背景下，作为供应链体系中重要支付手段的票据违约也不断集中爆发。当票据违约遭遇票据当事人破产，持票人追偿票据债权将更为困难和复杂。本文主要探讨不同破产情形下持票人行权的策略，以及破产重整计划对持票人行使追索权的可能影响，望对供应链行业交易合规和纠纷解决有所启发。

一、承兑人或出票人破产情形下，持票人追偿票据债权的策略选择

以往银行汇票较少出现承兑人（或付款人）破产的情形，多为出票人破产，但近些年如包商银行破产、以及大型企业集团破产带来的其集团财务公司破产，使得银行汇票中承兑人破产也成为了现实问题。就商业汇票而言，出票人与付款人/承兑人可能为同一主体，也可能为不同主体，均有可能陷入破产困境。在不同情形下持票人追偿债权的可能策略，值得探讨。

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.

Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. has appropriately drawn significant attention.

The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a patent dispute case, Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC. Although the case has nothing to do with bankruptcy law, its outcome could have a substantial impact on bankruptcy practice and litigation.

The Supreme Court two years ago ruled in Baker Botts v. Asarco that bankruptcy professionals entitled to compensation from a debtor’s bankruptcy estate had no statutory right to be compensated for time spent defending against objections to their fee applications.