發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-05-20 03:09

  本文選題：跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議 + 跨界重整��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議是一種跨界破產(chǎn)案件中特有的，包含當(dāng)事人間合作與法院間司法協(xié)助等諸多內(nèi)容的協(xié)作機(jī)制。其實(shí)踐最早出現(xiàn)在1991年的Maxwell案中，此類(lèi)協(xié)議一般由雙方法院指定的破產(chǎn)管理人進(jìn)行磋商和制訂，再由法院以法院令的形式賦予其效力。早期跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議主要在美國(guó)、加拿大和英國(guó)三國(guó)法庭間簽訂，這是由英美法系的特殊性決定的。對(duì)民法法系的法官來(lái)說(shuō)，在沒(méi)有法律條文明確規(guī)定的情況下，難以簽訂此類(lèi)協(xié)議。但在Nakash案中，首次出現(xiàn)了美國(guó)法庭與民法法系的以色列法庭簽訂協(xié)議的情況。在歐盟破產(chǎn)規(guī)則于2002年生效后，在歐洲也出現(xiàn)了大量民法法系國(guó)家法庭簽訂跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議的案例。 跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議的應(yīng)用雖有諸多限制，卻仍然不斷發(fā)展，是因?yàn)閰f(xié)議富有活力的實(shí)踐推動(dòng)了跨界破產(chǎn)法理論的發(fā)展，而理論的發(fā)展推動(dòng)了各國(guó)立法和司法的發(fā)展，反過(guò)來(lái)為更多地適用協(xié)議提供了條件。而且，，集團(tuán)企業(yè)跨界破產(chǎn)的三大難題：跨界重整、跨界資產(chǎn)變現(xiàn)和公司間申索都需要依靠協(xié)議來(lái)解決。協(xié)議在跨界破產(chǎn)法律實(shí)踐中起到了樞軸作用。如今，跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議已經(jīng)受到跨界破產(chǎn)理論界的廣泛重視和認(rèn)可。在2000年前后的“新實(shí)用主義”論爭(zhēng)中，許多權(quán)威學(xué)者就跨界破產(chǎn)立法的模式和內(nèi)容展開(kāi)了激烈的爭(zhēng)論，但卻一致認(rèn)可跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議這一合作機(jī)制的價(jià)值�？缃缙飘a(chǎn)協(xié)議正被越來(lái)越多的國(guó)家的法庭采納，在規(guī)模越來(lái)越大的案件中得到應(yīng)用。因此，跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議的理論和實(shí)務(wù)研究具有重要意義。 跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議內(nèi)容一般包括法院間和管理人間的信息共享和溝通，一國(guó)破產(chǎn)代表在外國(guó)的出庭權(quán)、債務(wù)人資產(chǎn)識(shí)別與保存、債權(quán)申報(bào)與對(duì)待的協(xié)調(diào)等典型條款。實(shí)踐中跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議的內(nèi)容不斷演進(jìn)，越來(lái)越成熟系統(tǒng)。協(xié)議在史上最大破產(chǎn)案雷曼重整案中的成功應(yīng)用，昭示著跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議已經(jīng)從一種臨時(shí)變通的機(jī)制，發(fā)展成一套專(zhuān)門(mén)解決跨界破產(chǎn)案件特有問(wèn)題的強(qiáng)大工具。在研究了協(xié)議在跨界破產(chǎn)法律理論圖景中的地位，跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議得到廣泛應(yīng)用的原因，以及協(xié)議條款的演變歷史之后，需要回答我國(guó)是否需要跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議這一問(wèn)題。首先，從前面的論述不難發(fā)現(xiàn)協(xié)議在中國(guó)的應(yīng)用順理成章；其次，通過(guò)分析近期的太子奶案和North Pole案可以直觀地發(fā)現(xiàn)，適用協(xié)議可以幫助解決許多在我國(guó)發(fā)生的跨界破產(chǎn)案件。我國(guó)目前還缺乏應(yīng)用跨界破產(chǎn)協(xié)議的實(shí)踐，也缺乏法院應(yīng)用協(xié)議的法律基礎(chǔ)，因此本文提出了一些建議，包括修訂破產(chǎn)法、制訂區(qū)際破產(chǎn)安排、司法解釋以及律師協(xié)會(huì)的指引，為今后我國(guó)司法工作人員和破產(chǎn)法律從業(yè)人員解決跨界破產(chǎn)案件提供參考。
[Abstract]:Cross-border insolvency agreement is a special cooperation mechanism in cross-border bankruptcy cases, which includes cooperation between parties and mutual legal assistance between courts. Its practice first appeared in the Maxwell case in 1991. Such agreements were generally negotiated and made by the insolvency representatives appointed by the courts of both parties, and then given effect by the court in the form of court orders. The early cross-border bankruptcy agreement was mainly signed between the courts of the United States, Canada and Britain, which was decided by the particularity of common law system. It is difficult for civil law judges to conclude such agreements without legal provisions. But in the case of Nakash, it was the first time that American courts signed an agreement with Israeli courts of civil law system. After the EU bankruptcy rules came into effect in 2002, there have been a large number of cases of cross-border bankruptcy agreements signed by the courts of civil law countries in Europe. Although there are many restrictions on the application of cross-border bankruptcy agreements, they are still developing, because the vigorous practice of the agreements has promoted the development of the theory of cross-border insolvency law, and the development of theory has promoted the development of legislation and judicature in various countries. This in turn provides conditions for greater application of the agreement. Moreover, there are three major difficulties in cross-border bankruptcy: cross-border restructuring, cross-border asset realisation and inter-firm claims, all of which need to be resolved by agreement. Agreement plays a pivotal role in the practice of cross-border bankruptcy law. Nowadays, cross-border bankruptcy agreement has been widely recognized by the theory of cross-border bankruptcy. In the controversy of "neo-pragmatism" around 2000, many authoritative scholars have launched fierce debates on the mode and content of cross-border bankruptcy legislation, but they all agree on the value of the cooperation mechanism of cross-border bankruptcy agreement. Cross-border bankruptcy agreements are being adopted by courts in a growing number of countries and are being applied in growing numbers of cases. Therefore, the theoretical and practical study of cross-border insolvency agreement is of great significance. The content of cross-border insolvency agreement generally includes the information sharing and communication between courts and administrators, the right of a country's insolvency representative to appear in a foreign country, the identification and preservation of the debtor's assets, the coordination of claims declaration and treatment, and so on. In practice, the content of cross-border bankruptcy agreement evolves and becomes more and more mature system. The successful application of the agreement in the Lehman reorganization case, the largest bankruptcy case in history, shows that the cross-border bankruptcy agreement has developed from a temporary alternative mechanism into a powerful tool for solving the unique problems of cross-border bankruptcy cases. After studying the status of agreement in the legal picture of cross-border insolvency, the reason why cross-border insolvency agreement has been widely used, and the evolution history of agreement terms, we need to answer the question whether our country needs cross-border insolvency agreement. First of all, it is not difficult to find the application of the protocol in China from the previous discussion. Secondly, by analyzing the recent Prince Milk case and the North Pole case, we can intuitively find that the applicable agreement can help solve many cross-border bankruptcy cases in China. At present, our country still lacks the practice of applying cross-border bankruptcy agreement, and also lacks the legal basis of court application agreement. Therefore, this paper puts forward some suggestions, including revising bankruptcy law, making inter-regional bankruptcy arrangement, judicial interpretation and the guidance of the Bar Association. It provides a reference for the future judicial staff and bankruptcy law practitioners to solve cross-border bankruptcy cases.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D996.1;D922.291.92

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 石靜遐;我國(guó)破產(chǎn)程序域外效力的實(shí)例分析——評(píng)香港高等法院對(duì)“廣信”破產(chǎn)程序的承認(rèn)[J];政法論壇;2002年03期

2 石靜遐;中國(guó)的跨界破產(chǎn)法:現(xiàn)狀、問(wèn)題及發(fā)展[J];中國(guó)法學(xué);2002年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 王曉瓊;跨境破產(chǎn)中的法律沖突問(wèn)題研究[D];華東政法學(xué)院;2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 高華超;對(duì)跨國(guó)集團(tuán)破產(chǎn)案件管轄權(quán)歸屬標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的探討[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2011年

本文編號(hào)：1912918