【摘要】：目前,企業(yè)在不同程度上存在著一定的不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)問(wèn)題,無(wú)論是在中國(guó)抑或在國(guó)外,無(wú)論是國(guó)有企業(yè)抑或非國(guó)有企業(yè),莫不如此。2008年國(guó)際金融危機(jī)的爆發(fā),使得企業(yè)的不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)困境愈發(fā)“雪上加霜”。企業(yè)中不良資產(chǎn)的大量存在,不僅使得企業(yè)資產(chǎn)的流動(dòng)性降低,而且也使得企業(yè)的資產(chǎn)流失加劇,在無(wú)法給企業(yè)帶來(lái)預(yù)期收益的同時(shí),更是導(dǎo)致企業(yè)資產(chǎn)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力大副度下降。由此,如何應(yīng)對(duì)因不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)問(wèn)題而引起一連串的企業(yè)債務(wù)困境乃至惡性循環(huán),進(jìn)而恢復(fù)和提升企業(yè)的資產(chǎn)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力,無(wú)疑成為了一個(gè)既具有理論深度更具有現(xiàn)實(shí)意義的重大課題。為此,企業(yè)的不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組問(wèn)題不僅在理論討論上趨于白熱化,而且在實(shí)踐操作中也開(kāi)展得如火如荼。然而,在企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組過(guò)程中,作為企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組中的關(guān)鍵環(huán)節(jié)——不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式,因受到多種利益的驅(qū)動(dòng)和多種因素的影響,呈現(xiàn)出了多種方式并存的格局,不僅相互之間的界限不明,而且在適用上往往“張冠李戴”,從而導(dǎo)致了各種的違規(guī)違法現(xiàn)象層出不窮。因此,企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式,無(wú)論在制度設(shè)計(jì)上抑或業(yè)務(wù)操作中,均顯現(xiàn)出一定程度上的混亂不堪。值得注意的是,當(dāng)前中國(guó)學(xué)者對(duì)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的研究?jī)H僅限于經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)上的實(shí)證性分析和法學(xué)上的“零星式”探討,這種狀況無(wú)法滿足企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式在實(shí)踐運(yùn)用時(shí)對(duì)理論指導(dǎo)的渴求。而與此同時(shí),域外主要國(guó)家及地區(qū)對(duì)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的法律規(guī)定趨于完善,在實(shí)踐操作中也相對(duì)嫻熟,無(wú)疑給了中國(guó)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的法律改進(jìn)予以極大的啟發(fā)。由此,有必要對(duì)中外企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)重組方式進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步的梳理與總結(jié),在對(duì)中外企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的不同規(guī)定進(jìn)行比較考察的基礎(chǔ)上,對(duì)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)性的法律比較研究,以期對(duì)中國(guó)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式法律制度的改進(jìn)和完善有所助益。 為此,本文對(duì)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的研究,實(shí)行下述“三步走”方案,即： 第一步,科學(xué)歸納。首先,在對(duì)中外企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的概念進(jìn)行比較分析的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)、會(huì)計(jì)學(xué)上有關(guān)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的規(guī)定,科學(xué)地界定了企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式法律上的涵義；其次,在對(duì)當(dāng)前中外企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)梳理的基礎(chǔ)上,采用科學(xué)歸納法對(duì)其進(jìn)行合理分類并將其劃分為自由協(xié)商式企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式、《破產(chǎn)法》項(xiàng)下企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式和政策性企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式。最后,對(duì)三種方式之間的關(guān)系進(jìn)行科學(xué)定位,即在當(dāng)前企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式體系中,自由協(xié)商式企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式為主導(dǎo),政策性企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式為補(bǔ)充,而《破產(chǎn)法》項(xiàng)下企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式則與自由協(xié)商式企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式并存的一種重要的債務(wù)重組方式。并且,上述三種方式并非孤立存在和相互對(duì)立的,而是相互聯(lián)系、相互補(bǔ)充的,在特定條件下,可以同時(shí)進(jìn)行適用、交叉適用乃至組合適用。 第二步,比較研究。先分別對(duì)有關(guān)自由協(xié)商式企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式、《破產(chǎn)法》項(xiàng)下企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式和政策性企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的中外法律規(guī)定或政策指導(dǎo)進(jìn)行比較研究,后對(duì)中外之間的法律規(guī)定或政策指導(dǎo)進(jìn)行客觀評(píng)價(jià),以便對(duì)中國(guó)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式未來(lái)的改進(jìn)和完善能有所啟發(fā)。 第三步,借鑒啟發(fā)。先對(duì)中國(guó)當(dāng)前的自由協(xié)商式企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式、《破產(chǎn)法》項(xiàng)下企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式和政策性企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式進(jìn)行逐一分析,在查找出相關(guān)問(wèn)題的基礎(chǔ)上,后結(jié)合域外主要國(guó)家及地區(qū)的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定或政策指導(dǎo)提出中國(guó)企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式改進(jìn)和完善的具體建議。 通過(guò)上述研究,我們發(fā)現(xiàn),上述三種企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式在相當(dāng)長(zhǎng)的時(shí)期內(nèi)將會(huì)繼續(xù)存在,且相互間的融合滲透將會(huì)體現(xiàn)的更為頻繁、更為密切。尤其,在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)的龐大格局中,自由協(xié)商式企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式將會(huì)在法律允許范圍內(nèi)進(jìn)一步深化組合,甚至在金融創(chuàng)新的帶動(dòng)下,出現(xiàn)新的操作方法或新的方法組合；在后金融危機(jī)的持續(xù)影響下,現(xiàn)有《破產(chǎn)法》項(xiàng)下企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的弊端越發(fā)顯現(xiàn),破產(chǎn)和解與破產(chǎn)重整遭遇了“制度瓶頸”；在國(guó)有企業(yè)在市場(chǎng)經(jīng)濟(jì)中仍占一席之地的現(xiàn)實(shí)背景下,政策性企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式則有待于進(jìn)一步限定與規(guī)范。 有鑒于此,在對(duì)中外企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式不同法律規(guī)定進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)考察與全面比較的基礎(chǔ)上,結(jié)合中國(guó)當(dāng)前企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式存在的問(wèn)題,從多個(gè)角度、多個(gè)層次對(duì)其進(jìn)行全面而深入的研究,并進(jìn)行了有針對(duì)性的思考,即：關(guān)于自由協(xié)商式企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式,應(yīng)當(dāng)進(jìn)一步堅(jiān)持商事主體的意思自治原則,在法律允許的范圍內(nèi),進(jìn)一步發(fā)揮著商事主體解決企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)的主動(dòng)性、積極性和創(chuàng)造性。就其具體操作方法上存在的立法上的滯后、空白以及不同法律法規(guī)之間的沖突,立法機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)當(dāng)借鑒域外主要國(guó)家及地區(qū)的相關(guān)規(guī)定,及時(shí)對(duì)現(xiàn)行法律法規(guī)進(jìn)行修改和完善。關(guān)于《破產(chǎn)法》項(xiàng)下的企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式,就其和解程序中存在的操作程序繁瑣、制約因素強(qiáng)大以及重整程序中存在的監(jiān)控措施缺位、關(guān)鍵機(jī)制缺陷和轉(zhuǎn)換機(jī)制缺乏,立法機(jī)關(guān)應(yīng)當(dāng)借鑒域外主要國(guó)家及地區(qū)的相關(guān)規(guī)定,及時(shí)對(duì)現(xiàn)行法律進(jìn)行修改,并進(jìn)行一定的制度創(chuàng)新予以解決。關(guān)于政策性企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式,就其操作實(shí)踐中存在的方式不明、政策模糊,需要進(jìn)一步限定政策性企業(yè)不良資產(chǎn)債務(wù)重組方式的具體操作方法,充分發(fā)揮政策性債轉(zhuǎn)股的功能和作用,參考美國(guó)商業(yè)性債轉(zhuǎn)股的成功做法,對(duì)其進(jìn)行進(jìn)一步規(guī)范,使之與商業(yè)性債轉(zhuǎn)股進(jìn)行有機(jī)對(duì)接。
[Abstract]:At present, enterprises have some problems of non-performing assets and liabilities to varying degrees, whether in China or abroad, whether state-owned enterprises or non-state-owned enterprises. The outbreak of the international financial crisis in 2008 has made the non-performing assets and liabilities of enterprises worse and worse. It not only reduces the liquidity of enterprise assets, but also aggravates the loss of enterprise assets, and at the same time it can not bring expected profits to the enterprise, it also leads to the decline of enterprise assets competitiveness. Therefore, the problem of non-performing assets debt restructuring of enterprises not only tends to be white-hot in theoretical discussion, but also develops in full swing in practice. As a key link in the restructuring of non-performing assets debt, the way of non-performing assets debt restructuring is driven by various interests and influenced by many factors. It presents a pattern of coexistence of various ways. Not only the boundaries between them are not clear, but also the application of the method is often "crowned with each other" which leads to various violations of the law. It is noteworthy that the current research on the restructuring of NPL debts by Chinese scholars is limited to economics, accounting empirical analysis and legal science. At the same time, the legal provisions of the major countries and regions outside China on the restructuring of non-performing assets debt tend to be perfect and relatively skilled in practice, which undoubtedly gives Chinese enterprises. Therefore, it is necessary to further sort out and summarize the ways of non-performing assets reorganization of Chinese and foreign enterprises. On the basis of comparative study of the different provisions of non-performing assets debt reorganization of Chinese and foreign enterprises, this paper discusses the relationship between the ways of non-performing assets debt reorganization of enterprises. A general legal comparative study is expected to be helpful to the improvement and perfection of the legal system of non-performing assets debt restructuring in China.
To this end, this paper carries out the following "three-step" plan for the study of the restructuring of non-performing assets and liabilities of enterprises, namely:
Firstly, on the basis of comparative analysis of the concepts of non-performing assets debt restructuring mode of Chinese and foreign enterprises, and combining with the provisions of economics and accounting on non-performing assets debt restructuring mode of enterprises, this paper scientifically defines the legal meaning of non-performing assets debt restructuring mode of enterprises; secondly, it defines the legal meaning of non-performing assets debt restructuring mode of enterprises at home and abroad. On the basis of systematically combing the modes of non-performing assets debt restructuring of enterprises, this paper adopts scientific induction method to classify them reasonably and divides them into the modes of non-performing assets debt restructuring of enterprises through free consultation, the modes of non-performing assets debt restructuring of enterprises under the Bankruptcy Law and the modes of non-performing assets debt restructuring of policy-oriented enterprises. In the current system of non-performing assets debt restructuring, free negotiation is the dominant mode, policy-based non-performing assets debt restructuring is the supplement, and the non-performing assets debt restructuring mode under the Bankruptcy Law is the free negotiation enterprise. Moreover, the above three methods are not isolated and mutually opposed, but interrelated and complementary. Under certain conditions, they can be applied simultaneously, cross-applicable and even combination applicable.
The second step is the comparative study. First of all, it compares the Chinese and foreign legal provisions or policy guidance on the free consultative restructuring of non-performing assets and debts of enterprises, the restructuring of non-performing assets and the restructuring of non-performing assets and debts of policy-oriented enterprises under the Bankruptcy Law. The objective evaluation will be helpful to the improvement and perfection of the way of restructuring NPL debts of Chinese enterprises in the future.
The third step is to draw lessons from it. First of all, this paper analyzes the current free negotiation restructuring mode of non-performing assets and debts, the restructuring mode of non-performing assets and debts under the Bankruptcy Law and the restructuring mode of non-performing assets and debts of policy-oriented enterprises one by one. Specific suggestions for the improvement and perfection of the restructuring methods of non-performing assets and liabilities of Chinese enterprises are put forward by law or policy guidance.
Through the above-mentioned research, we find that the above-mentioned three types of non-performing assets debt restructuring will continue to exist for a long time, and the mutual integration and infiltration will be more frequent and closer. Especially, in the huge pattern of market economy, the free negotiation type of non-performing assets debt restructuring will be in law. Under the influence of the post-financial crisis, the drawbacks of the existing restructuring methods of non-performing assets and debts under the Bankruptcy Law have become more and more obvious, and the bankruptcy reconciliation and restructuring have encountered "institutional bottlenecks"; Under the realistic background that the state-owned enterprises still occupy a place in the market economy, the way of restructuring the non-performing assets debt of the policy-oriented enterprises needs to be further limited and standardized.
In view of this, on the basis of systematic investigation and comprehensive comparison of different legal provisions of non-performing assets debt restructuring between Chinese and foreign enterprises, combined with the problems existing in the current non-performing assets debt restructuring of Chinese enterprises, this paper makes a comprehensive and in-depth study on it from various angles and levels, and carries out a targeted thinking, that is, considering the problems existing in the current non-performing assets debt restructuring of Chinese enterprises. As for the way of restructuring non-performing assets and liabilities of enterprises through free consultation, we should further adhere to the principle of autonomy of the will of the commercial subject, and give full play to the initiative, enthusiasm and creativity of the commercial subject in resolving the non-performing assets and liabilities of enterprises within the scope permitted by law. In view of the conflicts between different laws and regulations, the legislature should revise and perfect the existing laws and regulations in time by drawing lessons from the relevant provisions of major foreign countries and regions. Legislative organs should draw lessons from the relevant regulations of major foreign countries and regions, amend the existing laws in time, and carry out certain institutional innovations to solve the problems. Regarding the policy-oriented enterprises'non-performing assets debt restructuring mode, its operational practice is also discussed. The existing mode is unclear and the policy is vague, so it is necessary to further restrict the specific operation method of the policy-oriented enterprises'non-performing assets debt restructuring, give full play to the function and role of the policy-based debt-to-equity swap, refer to the successful practice of the US commercial debt-to-equity swap, further standardize it, and make it organic docking with the commercial debt-to-equity swap.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號(hào)】：D996;D922.291.92

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 黃飛,王秀平;我國(guó)金融資產(chǎn)管理公司債轉(zhuǎn)股的法律分析[J];河北法學(xué);2000年05期

2 張繼紅,席曉娟;國(guó)有企業(yè)“債轉(zhuǎn)股”法律問(wèn)題初探[J];河北法學(xué);2000年05期

3 胡雪琴;;我國(guó)資產(chǎn)管理公司的“前世今生”[J];金融管理與研究;2010年06期

4 石俊志;論我國(guó)政策性債轉(zhuǎn)股向商業(yè)性債轉(zhuǎn)股的轉(zhuǎn)化[J];河南社會(huì)科學(xué);2004年04期

5 朱民,黃金老;論中國(guó)的資產(chǎn)管理公司[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;1999年12期

6 郭鵬飛,孫培源;資本結(jié)構(gòu)的行業(yè)特征:基于中國(guó)上市公司的實(shí)證研究[J];經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2003年05期

7 王云;;運(yùn)用債務(wù)重組手段處置金融不良資產(chǎn)的實(shí)例研究[J];金融理論與實(shí)踐;2011年03期

8 張華;;債轉(zhuǎn)股的法律思考[J];科技情報(bào)開(kāi)發(fā)與經(jīng)濟(jì);2007年12期

9 王衛(wèi)國(guó);論重整制度[J];法學(xué)研究;1996年01期

10 苗德泉;;關(guān)于債轉(zhuǎn)股若干問(wèn)題的思考[J];理論界;2006年10期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 禹芳;俄羅斯破產(chǎn)重整中債權(quán)人利益保護(hù)法律制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2009年

，

本文編號(hào)：2247394