【摘要】：2009年3月,花旗銀行向開曼大法庭申請對太子奶進(jìn)行破產(chǎn)清算。4月,該庭裁定太子奶破產(chǎn),并委任香港保華會計師事務(wù)所作為太子奶的臨時清盤人,對太子奶國內(nèi)外的資產(chǎn)進(jìn)行清算。此事經(jīng)媒體曝光后,立即在國內(nèi)引起軒然大波。法律界人士認(rèn)為,如果中國法院承認(rèn)開曼大法庭的破產(chǎn)清算裁定,該案就會成為中國企業(yè)跨國破產(chǎn)的第一案。該案的一些法律問題引起了法律界人士的見仁見智大討論。 本文從幾個熱點問題入手,對太子奶破產(chǎn)案進(jìn)行法理分析。認(rèn)為開曼大法庭對湖南太子奶集團(tuán)破產(chǎn)案并沒有管轄權(quán),原因是當(dāng)事人約定了管轄,排除了外國法律的適用�；ㄆ煦y行向開曼大法庭申請?zhí)幽唐飘a(chǎn)清算,由于違背了當(dāng)事人之間的約定,并且導(dǎo)致太子奶陷入了嚴(yán)重的危機(jī),造成了巨大的損失,應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)侵權(quán)責(zé)任。中國法院對開曼大法庭的裁定不予承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行于法有據(jù),因為開曼法庭不具有管轄權(quán),且裁定違背了中國的國家利益及中國債權(quán)人的利益,不利于對企業(yè)的挽救和債權(quán)人利益的保護(hù)。高科奶業(yè)與太子奶的托管協(xié)議是合法有效的,但高科奶業(yè)因違反協(xié)議和合同目的,理應(yīng)將經(jīng)營權(quán)交回給太子奶。其強(qiáng)占經(jīng)營權(quán)的行為是無法律依據(jù),且損害了債務(wù)人和債權(quán)人的利益。高科奶業(yè)作為托管方,并無權(quán)對企業(yè)進(jìn)行破產(chǎn)重整。其強(qiáng)行推行破產(chǎn)重整不僅違背了債務(wù)人和債權(quán)人的利益,且于法無據(jù)。 針對本案出現(xiàn)的一些法律問題,本文也提出了一些思考。太子奶的破產(chǎn)使我們不得不思考離岸公司的法律風(fēng)險,對此我們應(yīng)如何防范。在破產(chǎn)案中我們應(yīng)如何維持債務(wù)人、債權(quán)人、托管人、政府方面的利益平衡,是否應(yīng)以政府利益優(yōu)先,是否應(yīng)關(guān)注債務(wù)人的利益訴求,對債權(quán)人我們應(yīng)如何平等保護(hù)等?株洲市政府的托管模式號稱是政府救企模式的創(chuàng)新,但其結(jié)果是不但沒有把企業(yè)救活,反而加速并最終導(dǎo)致了其破產(chǎn)。我們應(yīng)如何界定政府對企業(yè)管理的邊界,應(yīng)不應(yīng)該依據(jù)市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的規(guī)律辦事,這也值得反思。在跨國破產(chǎn)中,我們應(yīng)如何保護(hù)國外債權(quán)人的利益,如何與外國法院進(jìn)行國際協(xié)作,對公共秩序保留原則是否應(yīng)慎用,是否應(yīng)按國際規(guī)則和國際慣例辦事,如何才能做到既能維護(hù)國家利益和國內(nèi)債權(quán)人債務(wù)人利益,又能使中國法院的判決得到外國法院的承認(rèn)與執(zhí)行等,這也是一個值得研究的問題。
[Abstract]:In March 2009, Citibank applied to the Cayman Court for the bankruptcy of Prince Milk. In April, the court ruled that Prince Milk went bankrupt and appointed Hong Kong's Paul's Accounting firm as provisional liquidator of Prince Milk. Liquidate the assets of Prince Milk at home and abroad. This matter by the media exposure, immediately in the domestic uproar. Legal professionals believe the case could become the first case of multinational bankruptcy in China if a Chinese court recognizes the Cayman Court's liquidation ruling. Some of the legal issues in this case have aroused the opinions of the legal profession. Starting with several hot issues, this paper analyzes the bankruptcy of Prince Milk. The author holds that the Cayman Court does not have jurisdiction over the bankruptcy of Hunan Prince Milk Group because the parties agreed to jurisdiction and excluded the application of foreign law. Citibank applied to the Cayman Court for the bankruptcy liquidation of Prince Milk, which broke the agreement between the parties and caused the Prince Milk to fall into a serious crisis, resulting in huge losses, and should be liable for infringement. The decision of the Grand Cayman Court is not recognized and enforced by Chinese courts because it does not have jurisdiction and is found to be contrary to the national interests of China and the interests of Chinese creditors, Not conducive to the rescue of enterprises and the protection of the interests of creditors. The trust agreement between Hi-tech dairy and Prince Milk is legal and effective, but due to the breach of agreement and contract, Hi-tech Dairy should return the right of operation to Prince Milk. There is no legal basis for its expropriation, and it damages the interests of debtors and creditors. High-tech dairy industry as trusteeship, and no right to bankruptcy reorganization of enterprises. It not only violates the interests of debtors and creditors, but also has no basis in law. In view of some legal problems in this case, this paper also puts forward some thoughts. The bankruptcy of Prince Milk has forced us to think about the legal risks of offshore companies. How should we maintain the balance of interests among debtors, creditors, custodians and governments in bankruptcy cases?. Should we give priority to the interests of the Government?. Should we pay attention to the interests of the debtors and how should we protect the creditors equally?. Zhuzhou Municipal Government's trusteeship model is claimed to be an innovation of the government's mode of rescuing enterprises, but the result is that instead of rescuing the enterprises, it accelerates and eventually leads to its bankruptcy. How should we define the boundary between government and enterprise management and whether we should act according to the laws of market economy? this is also worth reflecting. In transnational insolvency, how should we protect the interests of foreign creditors, how to cooperate with foreign courts, and whether the principle of public order reservation should be applied with caution, and whether we should act in accordance with international rules and practices? How to protect the national interests and the interests of the creditors and debtors in China and to make the judgments of Chinese courts recognized and enforced by foreign courts is also a problem worth studying.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號】：D997;D922.291.92

【引證文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前2條

1 秦明月;跨國企業(yè)破產(chǎn)管轄權(quán)研究[D];蘇州大學(xué);2013年

2 張輝;跨境破產(chǎn)程序探析[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號：2385651