本文選題：破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯 + 效率　； 參考：《中國(guó)政法大學(xué)》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 破產(chǎn)抗辯制度發(fā)源于美國(guó)1930年代的國(guó)家鞋業(yè)案,后來(lái)在一系列案件中得到進(jìn)一步闡釋和應(yīng)用。其最核心的要件是并購(gòu)對(duì)象是一家破產(chǎn)企業(yè),并且該項(xiàng)并購(gòu)不會(huì)實(shí)質(zhì)性的減少競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。但是,美國(guó)在運(yùn)用該制度時(shí)要求極為嚴(yán)苛,因此現(xiàn)實(shí)中應(yīng)用的案例不多。但,盡管如此,美國(guó)仍在其1992年由司法部和聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易法委員會(huì)聯(lián)合頒布的橫向合并指南中明確規(guī)定了這一制度。在實(shí)踐中,還發(fā)展出了所謂的“破產(chǎn)分企業(yè)抗辯”和“準(zhǔn)破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯”。 既美國(guó)創(chuàng)立這一制度后,世界其他很多國(guó)家也陸續(xù)承認(rèn)并運(yùn)用了這一制度,并也將其作為反壟斷豁免和抗辯的一種。但是在運(yùn)用程度和具體認(rèn)定要件上要求有所不同�？偟膩�(lái)說(shuō),該制度還是以美國(guó)運(yùn)用和肯定程度較高,歐盟、日本和其他國(guó)家雖然也有所承認(rèn),但應(yīng)用很少。 本人通過(guò)對(duì)各國(guó)運(yùn)用破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯的大量案例的研究,考察了各國(guó)對(duì)該制度的具體適用情況,并對(duì)之前他人論述的有些觀(guān)點(diǎn)進(jìn)行了自己的獨(dú)特解讀和分析。尤其是對(duì)美國(guó)的最有名和最近的有關(guān)破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯的案件進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)的介紹和分析,以求人們對(duì)這一制度的歷史發(fā)展和現(xiàn)狀有更清晰和準(zhǔn)確的認(rèn)識(shí)。 我國(guó)與此相關(guān)的法律不多,案例暫時(shí)還沒(méi)有�！斗磯艛喾ā吩谄涞�28條中規(guī)定了公共利益作為一種并購(gòu)反壟斷豁免制度而并沒(méi)有關(guān)于破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯的具體規(guī)定。但是,縱觀(guān)破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯的合理性分析和存在理由,效率和公共利益是其能抵消或作為維護(hù)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的最重要理由,當(dāng)然,各國(guó)即使在此“二惡”之間進(jìn)行平衡時(shí)也還會(huì)對(duì)該項(xiàng)破產(chǎn)并購(gòu)對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)沒(méi)有很大實(shí)質(zhì)性減少方面有所要求。我國(guó)在反壟斷法頒布之前和頒布之后都有很多國(guó)有破產(chǎn)企業(yè)并購(gòu)的案件,并且現(xiàn)在很多該類(lèi)并購(gòu)都沒(méi)有依法進(jìn)行申報(bào),因此,將來(lái)該類(lèi)并購(gòu)是否會(huì)涉及到使用破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯制度還不得而知。 最后,在前述基礎(chǔ)上本文對(duì)我國(guó)反壟斷法的完善提出了自己的建議。
[Abstract]:The bankruptcy defense system originated from the national shoe case in the 1930's and was further explained and applied in a series of cases.The most important element is that the object of M & A is a bankrupt enterprise, and the M & A will not substantially reduce competition.However, the application of the system in the United States is extremely demanding, so there are few cases in reality.Nevertheless, the United States made this regime explicit in its 1992 horizontal merger Guide, jointly promulgated by the Department of Justice and the Federal Commission on Trade Law.In practice, the so-called "bankruptcy division defense" and "quasi-bankrupt enterprise defense" have been developed.Since the establishment of this system in the United States, many other countries in the world have recognized and used it as a kind of antitrust immunity and defense.However, the degree of application and specific requirements are different.Overall, the system is still used and highly recognized by the United States, although recognized by the European Union, Japan and other countries, it is rarely used.Through the research of a large number of cases about the application of bankruptcy enterprise defense in various countries, I have investigated the concrete application of this system in various countries, and have carried on their own unique interpretation and analysis to some viewpoints discussed by others before.In particular, the most famous and recent cases concerning the defense of bankrupt enterprises in the United States are introduced and analyzed in detail, in order to obtain a clearer and more accurate understanding of the historical development and present situation of this system.There are not many laws related to this in our country. The Anti-monopoly Law stipulates in Article 28 that the public interest is a kind of anti-monopoly exemption system of merger and acquisition, but there is no specific provision on the defense of bankrupt enterprises.However, looking at the reasonableness of the defense of the bankrupt enterprise and the reasons for its existence, efficiency and public interest are the most important reasons for its ability to offset or to maintain competition, of course,Even if there is a balance between this "dioxin", the bankruptcy merger will not have a substantial reduction in competition.Before and after the promulgation of the Anti-monopoly Law, there are many cases of mergers and acquisitions of state-owned bankrupt enterprises in China, and now many of these mergers and acquisitions have not been declared according to law.It is unclear whether such mergers and acquisitions will involve the use of the bankruptcy defense system in the future.Finally, on the basis of the above, this paper puts forward some suggestions for the perfection of our anti-monopoly law.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國(guó)政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D971.2

【同被引文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前7條

1 王曉曄;;《中華人民共和國(guó)反壟斷法》中經(jīng)營(yíng)者集中的評(píng)析[J];法學(xué)雜志;2008年01期

2 史建三;;完善我國(guó)經(jīng)營(yíng)者集中實(shí)質(zhì)審查抗辯制度的思考[J];法學(xué);2009年12期

3 王鑫;;企業(yè)合并反壟斷控制中的破產(chǎn)公司規(guī)則研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年01期

4 王志崗;;企業(yè)合并反壟斷審查中的破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯——金融危機(jī)背景下破產(chǎn)企業(yè)抗辯的適用[J];甘肅聯(lián)合大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2010年02期

5 石旭雯;反壟斷法對(duì)企業(yè)合并規(guī)則的實(shí)體法研究[J];甘肅行政學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年04期

6 向玉蘭;;論歐盟合并規(guī)制中的“垂危企業(yè)抗辯”[J];佛山科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2009年04期

7 鎖放;;論經(jīng)營(yíng)者集中反壟斷審查中的破產(chǎn)抗辯制度[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2009年27期

，

本文編號(hào)：1756844