本文選題：資產(chǎn)證券化 + 重新定性　； 參考：《中國政法大學》2010年碩士論文

【摘要】： 資產(chǎn)證券化起源于上世紀70年代的美國,作為最新的融資工具,資產(chǎn)證券化在美國取得了巨大的成功。但是,美國法院在應(yīng)收賬款轉(zhuǎn)讓重新定性問題上的混亂的判例法,給整個行業(yè)帶來很大的不確定性,從業(yè)者戰(zhàn)戰(zhàn)兢兢、無所適從。本文主要對重新定性問題展開研究,希望能對判例法的混亂提出應(yīng)對,同時把該領(lǐng)域最新的理論和研究介紹到國內(nèi)。 本文由引言、正文和結(jié)語三部分組成。引言部分介紹了本文的研究背景、意義和目的。正文部分共分三章,主要運用案例分析法、歷史分析法和文本分析法展開研究。正文部分的主要內(nèi)容是: 第一章是資產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移所涉概念。在這一章里,筆者主要對兩個重要概念進行了簡要分析,限定本文的研究范疇。首先是資產(chǎn)證券化的概念,由于資產(chǎn)證券化的實踐架構(gòu)復(fù)雜多變,學術(shù)上給出精確的定義是不可能的。但是,資產(chǎn)證券化具備兩個必備特征:一是要有可支撐的資產(chǎn);二是順利完成轉(zhuǎn)讓。接著,筆者介紹了另一概念——應(yīng)收賬款,在資產(chǎn)證券化中,能用來證券化的資產(chǎn)必須具備一定的特征,最重要的是證券化的資產(chǎn)必須保證能在未來產(chǎn)生穩(wěn)定的現(xiàn)金流,而應(yīng)收賬款就屬于這樣的資產(chǎn)。正因為應(yīng)收賬款的緣故,下文介紹的很多案例才能和資產(chǎn)證券化相聯(lián)系。 第二章是關(guān)于法院的判例法的分析。通過對美國積聚的有關(guān)應(yīng)收賬款轉(zhuǎn)讓的交易性質(zhì)重新認定的案件的考查,總結(jié)出法院判決時經(jīng)�？紤]的一些因素:對轉(zhuǎn)讓人的追索權(quán)(recourse)、轉(zhuǎn)讓人保留為應(yīng)收賬款服務(wù)的權(quán)利和收入的混同、受讓人調(diào)查債賬債務(wù)人信用情況的失敗、轉(zhuǎn)讓人保有超額清償價款的權(quán)利、回購選擇權(quán)(an option to repurchase)的保留、合同的用語和雙方的行為、單方調(diào)整或提請重新協(xié)商有關(guān)資產(chǎn)轉(zhuǎn)讓的其他條款的權(quán)利、單方調(diào)整價格條款的權(quán)利,一共八個,但實際應(yīng)該還有更多的因素,并且介紹了這些因素之間的相互作用。通過分析,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)美國關(guān)于該問題的判例法極其混亂,并已經(jīng)對實踐操作產(chǎn)生了不好的影響。 第三章是有關(guān)追索權(quán)的探討。學者們希望解決判例法的混亂問題,但是大家都無法繞開追索權(quán)的問題,追索權(quán)幾乎使得學者的努力全部白費。但是,追索權(quán)未必是重新定性的決定因素,或者說追索權(quán)可能與重新定性無關(guān)。下面,本文即從歷史的角度考察了重新定性的目的,得出追索權(quán)并不是必然與重新定性問題有關(guān),從而在一定程度上解決了追索權(quán)的困擾問題。而且,這樣的分析也得到了美國立法層面的支持。但是,司法領(lǐng)域?qū)τ趯W界與立法尚未回應(yīng),追索權(quán)問題究竟去向何方,現(xiàn)在還不好說。 結(jié)語部分則對本文進行了簡單總結(jié)。
[Abstract]:Asset securitization originated in the United States in the 1970s. As the latest financing tool, asset securitization has achieved great success in the United States. However, the confused case law of American courts on the recharacterization of accounts receivable has brought great uncertainty to the whole industry, and the practitioners are trembling and at a loss as to what to do. This paper mainly studies the problem of recharacterization, hoping to deal with the confusion of case law, and at the same time introducing the latest theories and studies in this field to our country. This paper is composed of three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction introduces the background, significance and purpose of this paper. The text is divided into three chapters, mainly using case analysis, historical analysis and text analysis. The main content of the text is: the first chapter is the concept of asset transfer. In this chapter, the author makes a brief analysis of two important concepts, limiting the scope of this study. The first is the concept of asset securitization, because the practical framework of asset securitization is complex and changeable, it is impossible to give a precise definition in academic. However, asset securitization has two essential features: one is to have supporting assets, the other is to complete the transfer smoothly. Then, the author introduces another concept-accounts receivable. In asset securitization, the assets that can be used for securitization must have certain characteristics, and the most important thing is that the assets of securitization must be able to produce stable cash flow in the future. Accounts receivable belong to such assets. Because of accounts receivable, many of the cases described below are linked to asset securitisation. Chapter two is an analysis of the court's case law. Through the examination of cases in which the nature of transactions relating to the transfer of accounts receivable accumulated in the United States has been re-established, Summing up some of the factors that are often taken into account in court decisions: recourse against the assignor, the confusion between the assignor's right to service accounts receivable and income, and the failure of the assignee to investigate the creditworthiness of the debtor, The assignor retains the right to overpay the price, the right to reserve the repurchase option an option to repurchase), the terms of the contract and the conduct of both parties, the right to unilaterally adjust or request renegotiation of other terms relating to the transfer of assets, There are eight rights to unilaterally adjust price terms, but there should be more, and the interaction between these factors is described. Through analysis, we find that the case law of the United States on this issue is extremely confused, and has had a bad impact on the practice. Chapter three is about the discussion of the right of recourse. Scholars hope to solve the confusion of case law, but we can not bypass the issue of recourse, recourse almost all the efforts of scholars in vain. However, recourse may not be the determinant of recharacterization, or it may have nothing to do with recharacterization. Next, this paper examines the purpose of recharacterization from the historical point of view, and concludes that recourse is not necessarily related to recharacterization, thus to a certain extent solve the puzzling problem of recourse. Moreover, this kind of analysis also obtained the American legislative level support. However, the judicial field has not yet responded to the academic and legislative issues, where the right of recourse to go, it is difficult to say. Conclusion part is a simple summary of this article.
【學位授予單位】：中國政法大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2010
【分類號】：D971.2;DD912.28

【引證文獻】

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前1條

1 仇海珍;美國知識產(chǎn)權(quán)證券化法律制度研究[D];復(fù)旦大學;2012年

，

本文編號：1999515