本文選題：跨國集團 + 跨界破產(chǎn)��； 參考：《中國政法大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：新科技革命推動著經(jīng)濟全球一體化的發(fā)展,而經(jīng)濟的全球化也推動著跨國集團的不斷壯大�？鐕瘓F在全球范圍內(nèi)募集資本開發(fā)市場,其股東和債權(quán)人往往因此而遍布全球。一旦跨國集團破產(chǎn),其帶來的影響也將是全球性的�？鐕瘓F破產(chǎn)案件中首先要解決的就是管轄權(quán)的歸屬問題。然而,盡管世界經(jīng)濟已經(jīng)見證了不少大型跨國集團的破產(chǎn),由于其所涉及問題的敏感性和復(fù)雜性,國際層面上至今仍然沒有一套強有力的統(tǒng)一規(guī)則來規(guī)范跨國集團破產(chǎn)案件的管轄權(quán)問題,而即便是國別立法中也鮮有具體而詳盡的規(guī)定。 時勢呼吁立法。目前,以美國為代表的發(fā)達國家已通過成文法的形式對跨界破產(chǎn)的問題進行專門性規(guī)范,而在國際層面上,歐盟地區(qū)也已經(jīng)制訂了的規(guī)則。關(guān)于跨國集團破產(chǎn)的問題主要通過法院間合作的方式來進行個案解決,而統(tǒng)一立法的實踐尚在探索之中。不可否認的是,對跨國集團破產(chǎn)問題的研究,有利于集團的發(fā)展和債權(quán)人利益的保護。本文通過對立法和司法實踐對該問題進行分析,繼而展望其前景并提出立法建議。 本文擬通過以下五個章節(jié)展開論述: 第一章介紹跨國集團破產(chǎn)案件中管轄權(quán)沖突的現(xiàn)實性。對于本文要討論的問題進行界定,探討跨國集團的概念,分析管轄權(quán)沖突產(chǎn)生的原因,為下文的論述做好范圍上的鋪墊。該部分擬從跨國集團的界定、跨國集團的規(guī)范方式、管轄權(quán)沖突的現(xiàn)實性等三個角度進行分析。 第二章探討跨國集團破產(chǎn)案件中確定管轄權(quán)標準的法理基礎(chǔ)。試圖從法理的角度去思考在解決這一問題過程中應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮的因素和可行性徑路,從而為本論文的研究進行法理層面的準備。目前國際上主要有兩種徑路解決這一問題,一是以美國為代表的“命令與控制”分析法,二是以歐盟為代表的“注冊地推定反駁”分析法。在接下來的兩章里將分析這兩種徑路的利弊得失。 第三章介紹“命令與控制”標準。這種徑路在2005年美國破產(chǎn)法第十五章的司法實踐中得到了很好的體現(xiàn)。該部分將以美國破產(chǎn)法第十五章為例介紹目前國內(nèi)立法的新動向,并論述其相對于曾經(jīng)的第304條款的進步性。同時,這一部分還將就第十五章在實踐中所遇到的挑戰(zhàn)展開討論,其中將重點討論SPhinX基金案和Basis Yield Alpha基金案中所反映出來的問題。值得一提的是,第十五章是以聯(lián)合國貿(mào)易法委員會《跨界破產(chǎn)示范法》為藍本制定的,對其研究還有助于我們理解聯(lián)合國在推動國際統(tǒng)一立法方面所做出的努力。 第四章介紹“注冊地推定反駁”分析法。這一徑路以歐盟理事會2000年破產(chǎn)程序規(guī)則為典型代表,該部分將以歐盟破產(chǎn)程序規(guī)則為例進行討論。該破產(chǎn)程序規(guī)則自通過至今已有十余年的時間,它經(jīng)歷了歐盟地區(qū)不同層級法院司法實踐的考驗,其中不乏不同國家法院之間甚至歐洲法院前后判決之間對同一法條作出不同解釋的情況。故本文還將通過Eurofood案等一系列具體案例的研究進一步探尋該破產(chǎn)程序規(guī)則的成功魅力所在。由于歐盟破產(chǎn)程序規(guī)則對歐盟國家具有強制約束力,其成功為推動具有強制力的國際立法提供了借鑒。 第五章作為全文的收尾部分,將在綜合前面四章分析論證的基礎(chǔ)上提出跨國集團破產(chǎn)案件管轄權(quán)分配的具體立法建議。筆者將首先介紹一下我國相關(guān)領(lǐng)域的立法現(xiàn)狀,然后總結(jié)出確定跨國集團破產(chǎn)案件中管轄權(quán)歸屬時應(yīng)當(dāng)考量的因素,最后提出將來立法中應(yīng)當(dāng)重點考慮的問題,為我國將來立法實踐和企業(yè)海外活動提供些許法律建議。筆者知道該問題全球立法的統(tǒng)一需要漫長而艱苦的努力,而此部分建議僅作為立法參考,力圖對國際實踐尤其是我國將來的立法產(chǎn)生積極意義。
[Abstract]:The new scientific and technological revolution is promoting the global economic integration, and the globalization of the economy has also promoted the growth of transnational groups. Transnational groups raise the capital development market around the world. Their shareholders and creditors tend to spread all over the world. Once the transnational group is bankrupt, the impact will be global. The first thing to solve in the case of bankruptcy is the ownership of jurisdiction. However, although the world economy has witnessed the bankruptcy of many large transnational groups, there is still not a set of strong unified rules to standardize the jurisdiction of the transnational group bankruptcy cases because of the sensitivity and complexity of the problems involved. There are few concrete and detailed provisions in national legislation.
The current situation calls for legislation. At present, the developed countries, represented by the United States, have made special norms for cross-border insolvency through the form of grammatical law. At the international level, the European Union has also established rules. The problem of the bankruptcy of transnational groups mainly through the way of inter court cooperation to solve the case, and the unified establishment. The practice of the law is still under exploration. It is undeniable that the study of the problem of the bankruptcy of transnational groups is conducive to the development of the group and the protection of the interests of the creditors. This paper analyzes the issue through legislative and judicial practice, and then looks forward to its prospects and proposes legislative proposals.
This article will be discussed in the following five chapters:
The first chapter introduces the reality of the conflict of jurisdiction in the case of transnational group bankruptcy. It defines the issues to be discussed in this article, discusses the concept of the transnational group, analyzes the causes of the conflict of jurisdiction, and pave the way for the scope of the discussion below. This part is to be defined from the definition of transnational groups, the standard mode of transnational groups and the jurisdiction of the transnational groups. The analysis is carried out in three angles, such as the sudden reality and so on.
The second chapter discusses the jurisprudential basis for the determination of the standard of jurisdiction in the case of transnational group bankruptcy, and tries to think from the perspective of jurisprudence to think about the factors and feasibility paths that should be considered in the process of solving this problem, so as to prepare for the research in this paper. At present, there are two main ways to solve this problem in the world, one is The "command and control" analysis, represented by the United States, two is the "registered ground refutation" analysis represented by the European Union. In the next two chapters, the advantages and disadvantages of the two paths will be analyzed.
The third chapter introduces the "command and control" standard. This path is well reflected in the judicial practice of the fifteenth chapter of the American bankruptcy law in 2005. This part will take the fifteenth chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Law as an example to introduce the new trend of the current domestic legislation and discuss its progressiveness relative to the 304th clause in the past. We will discuss the challenges encountered in the fifteenth chapter in practice, which will focus on the issues reflected in the SPhinX fund and the Basis Yield Alpha fund. It is worth mentioning that the fifteenth chapter is based on the United Nations Trade Law Commission's transboundary bankruptcy model law as the blueprint, and helps us to understand its research. The efforts made by the United Nations in promoting international uniform legislation.
The fourth chapter introduces the "registered ground presumption refutation" analysis. This path takes the EU Council's rules of bankruptcy procedure in 2000 as a typical representative. This part will be discussed with the rules of the European Union bankruptcy procedure as an example. It has been over ten years since the adoption of the rules, and it has experienced judicial practice at different levels in the European Union. There are many different interpretations of the same law between the courts of different countries and even the European courts. Therefore, this paper will further explore the success of the rules of the bankruptcy procedure through a series of specific cases such as Eurofood case. The success of the restraint force provides a reference for promoting the international legislation with coercive force.
The fifth chapter, as the end of the full text, will put forward specific legislative proposals on the distribution of jurisdiction of transnational group bankruptcy cases on the basis of the analysis and demonstration of the previous four chapters. The author will first introduce the status of legislation in the related fields of our country, and then summarize the reasons for determining the jurisdiction of transnational group breaking cases. In the end, it puts forward some issues that should be considered in the future legislation to provide some legal advice for our future legislative practice and the activities of enterprises overseas. I know that the unification of the global legislation requires a long and hard work, and this part proposes only as a legislative reference, trying to make international practice, especially in the future of our country. Life is positive.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：中國政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D996;D922.295

【參考文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前1條

1 黃松有;試述涉外民事案件管轄權(quán)的沖突及其解決[J];法律適用;2000年09期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 張玲;跨境破產(chǎn)合作中的國際私法問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2005年

，

本文編號：1938699