破產程序及公司重整程序均使債務人有重新開始之機會，且皆係一利大於弊之程序，對債權人而言，破產程序使其有公平受償之機會，重整程序亦使債權人能得到比公司破產清算較多之債權，故破產及重整程序皆為利大於弊的債務清理程序。本文之一大核心在比較我國公司重整制度與美國聯邦破產法典重整法制之差異並給予分析後，我們發現以重整法制而言我國仍有不少可以改進之處，債務清理法草案就現行重整法制不足之處提供了許多立意良善且寶貴之法律條文及意見，這也是為什麼本文期待債務清理法草案能早日三讀通過之原因。 接著，本文另一核心為銀行抵銷權之行使，試圖分析在一般情形及在重整程序進行中銀行行使抵銷權有無不同？在公司重整制度極度保護債務人之情況下，債權人關於其債權之保障亦不可偏廢，當企業有重整之需求時通常會需要大筆資金，銀行通常是重整企業之最大債權人，但銀行為確保其借款債權，常有以抵銷存款之方式作為債權回收之方法，然銀行行使抵銷權之結果直接侵害了同等地位之其他債權人之債權，造成重整財團範圍縮小，不利於其他重整債權人以及整個重整程序，且挑戰我國擔保物權之地位，故在重整程序中對抵銷權應有適度之限制，特別是在緊急處分中應明文化禁止行使抵銷權。 ;Both the bankruptcy procedure and the company reorganization procedure allow the debtor to start again, and both procedures have more advantages than disadvantages. For creditors, the bankruptcy procedure provides a fair chance of repayment, and the reorganization procedure also allows creditors to obtain more repayment than bankruptcy procedure. Therefore bankruptcy and reorganization procedures are debt liquidation procedures that have more advantages than disadvantages. One of the main cores of this article is to compare and analyze the differences between Taiwan’s corporate reorganization rules and the US Federal Bankruptcy Code’s reorganization legal system. We find that there are still many areas that can be improved in our country in terms of the reorganization legal system. The draft of the debt liquidation law provides a lot of good intentions and valuable legal provisions and opinions on the deficiencies of the current reorganization legal system, which is why this article expects the draft debt liquidation law to be passed through the third reading as soon as possible. Next, another core of this article is the exercise of the bank′s right of set-off, trying to analyze whether the bank′s exercise of the right of set-off is different in the general situation and the reorganization process. In the case of the company′s reorganization system that protects debtors extremely, creditors’ protection of their claims should not be neglected. When companies need to reorganize, they usually need large sums of funds. Banks are usually the largest creditors of reorganized companies. However, banks often use the method of offsetting deposits as a method of debt recovery to ensure their borrowing rights. The result of the bank′s exercise of the offsetting right directly infringes the claims of other creditors of the same status, resulting in a reduction in the scope of the reorganization consortium, which is not conducive to other reorganizations creditors and the entire reorganization procedure and it challenges the status of our country’s security real rights. Therefore, there should be appropriate restrictions on the right of set-off in the reorganization procedure, especially in emergency sanctions that the cultural prohibition of the right of set-off should be made clear.
