跨界破产协议研究

发布时间：2018-05-20 03:09

本文选题：跨界破产协议 + 跨界重整　；参考：《华东政法大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：跨界破产协议是一种跨界破产案件中特有的，包含当事人间合作与法院间司法协助等诸多内容的协作机制。其实践最早出现在1991年的Maxwell案中，此类协议一般由双方法院指定的破产管理人进行磋商和制订，再由法院以法院令的形式赋予其效力。早期跨界破产协议主要在美国、加拿大和英国三国法庭间签订，这是由英美法系的特殊性决定的。对民法法系的法官来说，在没有法律条文明确规定的情况下，难以签订此类协议。但在Nakash案中，首次出现了美国法庭与民法法系的以色列法庭签订协议的情况。在欧盟破产规则于2002年生效后，在欧洲也出现了大量民法法系国家法庭签订跨界破产协议的案例。跨界破产协议的应用虽有诸多限制，却仍然不断发展，是因为协议富有活力的实践推动了跨界破产法理论的发展，而理论的发展推动了各国立法和司法的发展，反过来为更多地适用协议提供了条件。而且，，集团企业跨界破产的三大难题：跨界重整、跨界资产变现和公司间申索都需要依靠协议来解决。协议在跨界破产法律实践中起到了枢轴作用。如今，跨界破产协议已经受到跨界破产理论界的广泛重视和认可。在2000年前后的“新实用主义”论争中，许多权威学者就跨界破产立法的模式和内容展开了激烈的争论，但却一致认可跨界破产协议这一合作机制的价值。跨界破产协议正被越来越多的国家的法庭采纳，在规模越来越大的案件中得到应用。因此，跨界破产协议的理论和实务研究具有重要意义。跨界破产协议内容一般包括法院间和管理人间的信息共享和沟通，一国破产代表在外国的出庭权、债务人资产识别与保存、债权申报与对待的协调等典型条款。实践中跨界破产协议的内容不断演进，越来越成熟系统。协议在史上最大破产案雷曼重整案中的成功应用，昭示着跨界破产协议已经从一种临时变通的机制，发展成一套专门解决跨界破产案件特有问题的强大工具。在研究了协议在跨界破产法律理论图景中的地位，跨界破产协议得到广泛应用的原因，以及协议条款的演变历史之后，需要回答我国是否需要跨界破产协议这一问题。首先，从前面的论述不难发现协议在中国的应用顺理成章；其次，通过分析近期的太子奶案和North Pole案可以直观地发现，适用协议可以帮助解决许多在我国发生的跨界破产案件。我国目前还缺乏应用跨界破产协议的实践，也缺乏法院应用协议的法律基础，因此本文提出了一些建议，包括修订破产法、制订区际破产安排、司法解释以及律师协会的指引，为今后我国司法工作人员和破产法律从业人员解决跨界破产案件提供参考。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：华东政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D996.1;D922.291.92

【参考文献】