关于 SVB Financial Group 案，案号 25-567，2026 WL 2648091（第2巡回法院，2026年9月9日），美国第二巡回上诉法院裁定：根据州法律仅享有纯防御性抵销权的债权人，并不持有《破产法》意义上的“债权”，因此无需提交债权申报即可保留其利用抵销来减少或抵消债务人针对其主张的权利。背景在发生挤兑后，硅谷银行（SVB）倒闭，联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）被指定为 SVB 的接管人。此后，FDIC 将 SVB 的资产和负债转移给一家过桥银行。
By Bethany Simmons, Noah Weingarten re SVB Financial Group, No. 25-567, 2026 WL 2648091, (2d Cir. Sept. 9, 2026), the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that a creditor whose setoff right under state law is purely defensive does not hold a "claim" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, need not file a proof of claim to preserve its right to use setoff to reduce or defeat the debtor's claims against it. Background After a run on the bank, Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) collapsed, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) was appointed as SVB's receiver. Thereafter, the FDIC transferred SVB's assets and liabilities to a bridge bank.
SVB 的母公司（SVB Parent）在 SVB 存有超过 20 亿美元存款，并从过桥银行提取了 1.5 亿美元。在 FDIC 能够确定 SVB 对 SVB Parent 的存款负债是否可因 SVB Parent 涉嫌对 SVB 管理不善而欠 FDIC（作为 SVB 接管人）的债务进行抵销（即减少）之前，FDIC 阻止 SVB Parent 提取更多资金。
SVB's corporate parent (SVB Parent) held more than $2 billion on deposit with SVB and withdrew $150 million from the bridge bank. The FDIC blocked SVB Parent from withdrawing additional funds until the FDIC could determine whether SVB's deposit liabilities owed to SVB Parent were subject to setoff (i.e., a reduction) against any debt that SVB Parent owed to the FDIC, as SVB's receiver, for mismanaging SVB.
随即，SVB Parent 申请第11章破产保护。在该案中，破产法院发布了债权申报截止令，（i）要求主张《破产法》第 101(5) 条意义上的“债权”的债权人和政府单位（包括 FDIC）在指定期限前提交债权申报；（ii）规定未按时提交债权申报的债权持有人将“永远被禁止、禁止反言并被禁令制止主张相关债权……针对债务人或财产”。尽管 FDIC 积极参与了该案，但并未提交债权申报。
Immediately thereafter, SVB Parent filed for Chapter 11. In that case, the bankruptcy court entered a bar date order, (i) requiring creditors and governmental units (including the FDIC) asserting a "claim" within the meaning of Section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code to file a proof of claim by a specified deadline; and (ii) providing that holders of claims that failed to timely file a proof of claim would be "forever barred, estopped[,] and enjoined from asserting the applicable claim ... against the Debtor or property of the estate." While the FDIC actively participated in the case, it did not file a proof of claim.
在加利福尼亚州联邦法院的一个单独且并行的诉讼中，SVB Parent 起诉 FDIC 追回其存款。FDIC 通过主张其抵销权作为积极抗辩来回应 SVB Parent 的主张。
In a separate, concurrent proceeding in California federal court, SVB Parent sued the FDIC to recover its deposits. The FDIC responded by asserting its setoff rights as an affirmative defense to SVB Parent's claims.
随后，SVB母公司在其破产案件中提交了一份第11章重组计划，其中包含（除其他事项外）一项禁令，禁止债权人主张抵销权以对抗财产方提出的债权，除非该债权人已提交债权申报书以保留抵销权，且破产法院已作出批准该抵销的终局命令。
Subsequently, SVB Parent filed a Chapter 11 plan in its bankruptcy case that contained, among other things, an injunction against creditors asserting a setoff to a claim brought by the estate unless the creditor had filed a proof of claim preserving the right of setoff and the bankruptcy court had entered a final order approving the setoff.
联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）提出异议，认为该计划不当地消灭了其在加利福尼亚州诉讼中主张的抗辩性抵销权，仅因FDIC未在破产案件中提交债权申报书。
The FDIC objected that the plan improperly extinguished its defensive setoff rights, which it had asserted in the California action, merely because the FDIC had not filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy case.
破产法院支持了FDIC的异议，裁定FDIC在加利福尼亚州诉讼中的抗辩性抵销权不属于《破产法》第101(5)条规定的“债权”，因此FDIC无需提交债权申报书即可保留这些权利。该案被认证可直接向第2巡回上诉法院上诉。
The bankruptcy court sustained the FDIC's objection and ruled that the FDIC's defensive setoff rights in the California action were not "claims" under Section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code and therefore, that the FDIC did not need to file a proof of claim to preserve those rights. The case was certified for a direct appeal to the 2nd Circuit.
上诉中，SVB母公司（作为上诉人）辩称，FDIC必须提交债权申报书以保留其抗辩性抵销权，因为这些权利属于《破产法》第101(5)条规定的“债权”，因此截止申报令和重组计划均消灭了FDIC在加利福尼亚州诉讼中主张抗辩性抵销的权利。
On appeal, SVB Parent (as appellant) argued that the FDIC was required to file a proof of claim to preserve its defensive setoff rights because those rights are "claims" under Section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code and that the bar date order and plan therefore both extinguished the FDIC's right to assert the defensive setoff in the California action.
破产法基础 待决问题是：“纯粹的抗辩性抵销权”是否属于《破产法》第101(5)条规定的“债权”。
Bankruptcy basics The question presented was "whether a purely defensive right of setoff" is a "claim" under Section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.
《破产法》第101(5)条将“债权”定义为“受偿权，无论该权利是否已化为判决、已确定、未确定、固定、或有、已到期、未到期、有争议、无争议、法律上、衡平法上、有担保或无担保。”
Section 101(5) of the Bankruptcy Code defines a claim to mean a "right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured."
第2巡回上诉法院指出，尽管该定义的适用范围并非“无限”，但“国会意在使其‘足够宽泛，以涵盖任何可能的受偿权’。” FDIC主张抗辩性抵销 作为门槛性问题，法院认定FDIC主张的是纯粹的抗辩性抵销。
The 2nd Circuit noted, although the definition's reach is not "infinite," "Congress intended it to be "sufficiently broad to encompass any possible right to payment." The FDIC asserted a defensive setoff As a threshold matter, the court determined that the FDIC was asserting a purely defensive setoff.
第二巡回上诉法院指出，联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）的抵消权“源自加利福尼亚州法律”，具体而言是《加利福尼亚州民事诉讼法》第431.70条。根据该条款，被告可以行使抵消权来驳回原告的诉讼请求，但无法借此获得任何积极的法律救济（即要求被告支付款项）。法院轻易认定，FDIC行使的抵消权属于防御性权利，因为：（1）如果FDIC在针对SVB Parent的加利福尼亚州诉讼中胜诉，它有权要求SVB Parent偿还其应支付的款项；（2）FDIC并未寻求从SVB Parent那里获得任何积极的赔偿或补偿。
The 2nd Circuit observed that the FDIC's defensive setoff rights "derive[d] from California law," specifically California Code of Civil Procedure § 431.70. Under that section, a defendant may assert setoff defensively to defeat a plaintiff's claim, but not to obtain affirmative relief. The 2nd Circuit easily found that the FDIC was asserting a defensive right of setoff under California law because (i) the FDIC was asserting a right to offset any amount it was found to owe SVB Parent if it prevailed in its California lawsuit against the FDIC, and (ii) the FDIC did not seek any affirmative recovery against SVB Parent.
SVB Parent辩称，这种防御性抵消行为实际上仍属于对FDIC的付款行为。然而，第二巡回上诉法院援引了先前的判例（In re Villarie, 648 F.2d 810 [1981]）指出：当债权人仅依据州法律拥有抵消权而并无起诉债务人的权利时，其并不具备要求债务人付款的法定依据。
SVB Parent countered that a defensive setoff "is still practically speaking payment to the FDIC." The 2nd Circuit found this argument was "foreclosed" by a prior 2nd Circuit decision, In re Villarie, 648 F.2d 810 (2d Cir. 1981), where the court held that a creditor did not hold a right to payment when it had a state-law right to offset, but no right to sue the debtor.
法院进一步认定：在本案中，加利福尼亚州法律不允许行使抵消权的一方从SVB Parent那里获得任何积极的法律救济。因此，FDIC所行使的抵消权纯粹属于防御性性质。
The court found that, as applied to the FDIC in the California action, California law does not allow a setoff holder to obtain any affirmative relief from SVB Parent. Thus, the FDIC was asserting a purely defensive setoff.
- 人名和地名一律使用中文字符进行转写；品牌名称和产品名称可保持原样（即使用拉丁字母）。
A defensive setoff does not constitute a claim under the Bankruptcy Code Having found that the FDIC was only attempting to effectuate a defensive setoff, the court proceeded to the core issue: whether a defensive setoff is a claim. The court held that "[w]hen using setoff as an affirmative defense, a creditor is 'not seeking to assert a 'claim' against the bankruptcy estate.'"
案件摘要：法院认定，联邦存款保险公司（FDIC）的行为仅属于防御性抵销（即旨在保护自身权益的抵销行为），而非《破产法》所定义的“债权主张”。法院进一步指出：“当债权人将抵销作为抗辩手段时，其实际上并未针对破产财产提出任何‘债权主张’。”
The court reasoned that "[r]elief by way of a setoff is limited to reducing or defeating a plaintiff's claim; a defendant may not obtain affirmative relief."
法院解释称：“通过抵销获得的救济仅限于减少或消除债权人的索赔金额；被告无权通过抵销获得实质性的权益。”
Stated differently, a "claim" is a "right to payment" and a defendant attempting to effectuate a defensive setoff has no "right to payment" under Section 101(5).
换句话说，“债权”是指“获得偿付的权利”；而试图进行防御性抵销的被告，根据《破产法》第101(5)条的规定，并不享有任何“获得偿付的权利”。在某些州法律下，债权人根本无权提起诉讼；因此，在这些情况下，债权人也不具备《破产法》所定义的“债权”资格。
Where "under the governing non-bankruptcy law" a creditor "could never sue," it has "no right to payment" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code's definition of "claim." That was the case with respect to the FDIC because the California setoff statute did not give the FDIC a right to payment — only a right to reduce the amount it might otherwise owe SVB Parent.
结论：本案明确了《破产法》中“抵销权”是否属于“债权”的关键问题，并指出该问题的判定取决于适用的法律。根据加州法律，抵销行为纯粹是防御性的（不允许债权人通过抵销获得实质性的赔偿），因此债权人无需提交债权证明即可保留其抵销权。
Conclusion SVB Financial answers an important and recurring question about whether a setoff right is a "claim" under the Bankruptcy Code and clarifies that the answer turns on applicable state law. Where, as under California law, setoff is purely defensive and allows no affirmative recovery, a creditor holds no "right to payment" and need not file a proof of claim to preserve its setoff right.
注意事项：试图通过破产计划条款或法院命令来限制抵销权的债务人，不应认为债权人在债权申报过程中的沉默就意味着其防御性抵销权会被自动放弃；而希望从破产财产中获取实质性赔偿的债权人仍需提交债权证明。
Debtors seeking to cut off setoff rights through plan provisions and bar date orders should not assume that a creditor's silence in the claims process forfeits a defensive setoff, while creditors that wish to recover affirmatively from the estate must still file proofs of claim.
法律从业者也应仔细研究适用的法律——因为在不同司法管辖区，关于抵销权的法律规定可能有所不同（某些地方允许债权人通过抵销获得赔偿）。
Practitioners should also examine applicable state law closely, as jurisdictions that treat setoff as permitting affirmative recovery could yield a different result.
作者感谢助理律师 Alex Konstantynovski 对本文的贡献。
The authors would like to thank associate Alex Konstantynovski for contributing to this article.