对跨国集团破产案件管辖权归属标准的探讨

发布时间：2018-05-26 19:52

本文选题：跨国集团 + 跨界破产　；参考：《中国政法大学》2011年硕士论文

【摘要】：新科技革命推动着经济全球一体化的发展,而经济的全球化也推动着跨国集团的不断壮大。跨国集团在全球范围内募集资本开发市场,其股东和债权人往往因此而遍布全球。一旦跨国集团破产,其带来的影响也将是全球性的。跨国集团破产案件中首先要解决的就是管辖权的归属问题。然而,尽管世界经济已经见证了不少大型跨国集团的破产,由于其所涉及问题的敏感性和复杂性,国际层面上至今仍然没有一套强有力的统一规则来规范跨国集团破产案件的管辖权问题,而即便是国别立法中也鲜有具体而详尽的规定。时势呼吁立法。目前,以美国为代表的发达国家已通过成文法的形式对跨界破产的问题进行专门性规范,而在国际层面上,欧盟地区也已经制订了的规则。关于跨国集团破产的问题主要通过法院间合作的方式来进行个案解决,而统一立法的实践尚在探索之中。不可否认的是,对跨国集团破产问题的研究,有利于集团的发展和债权人利益的保护。本文通过对立法和司法实践对该问题进行分析,继而展望其前景并提出立法建议。本文拟通过以下五个章节展开论述: 第一章介绍跨国集团破产案件中管辖权冲突的现实性。对于本文要讨论的问题进行界定,探讨跨国集团的概念,分析管辖权冲突产生的原因,为下文的论述做好范围上的铺垫。该部分拟从跨国集团的界定、跨国集团的规范方式、管辖权冲突的现实性等三个角度进行分析。第二章探讨跨国集团破产案件中确定管辖权标准的法理基础。试图从法理的角度去思考在解决这一问题过程中应当考虑的因素和可行性径路,从而为本论文的研究进行法理层面的准备。目前国际上主要有两种径路解决这一问题,一是以美国为代表的“命令与控制”分析法,二是以欧盟为代表的“注册地推定反驳”分析法。在接下来的两章里将分析这两种径路的利弊得失。第三章介绍“命令与控制”标准。这种径路在2005年美国破产法第十五章的司法实践中得到了很好的体现。该部分将以美国破产法第十五章为例介绍目前国内立法的新动向,并论述其相对于曾经的第304条款的进步性。同时,这一部分还将就第十五章在实践中所遇到的挑战展开讨论,其中将重点讨论SPhinX基金案和Basis Yield Alpha基金案中所反映出来的问题。值得一提的是,第十五章是以联合国贸易法委员会《跨界破产示范法》为蓝本制定的,对其研究还有助于我们理解联合国在推动国际统一立法方面所做出的努力。第四章介绍“注册地推定反驳”分析法。这一径路以欧盟理事会2000年破产程序规则为典型代表,该部分将以欧盟破产程序规则为例进行讨论。该破产程序规则自通过至今已有十余年的时间,它经历了欧盟地区不同层级法院司法实践的考验,其中不乏不同国家法院之间甚至欧洲法院前后判决之间对同一法条作出不同解释的情况。故本文还将通过Eurofood案等一系列具体案例的研究进一步探寻该破产程序规则的成功魅力所在。由于欧盟破产程序规则对欧盟国家具有强制约束力,其成功为推动具有强制力的国际立法提供了借鉴。第五章作为全文的收尾部分,将在综合前面四章分析论证的基础上提出跨国集团破产案件管辖权分配的具体立法建议。笔者将首先介绍一下我国相关领域的立法现状,然后总结出确定跨国集团破产案件中管辖权归属时应当考量的因素,最后提出将来立法中应当重点考虑的问题,为我国将来立法实践和企业海外活动提供些许法律建议。笔者知道该问题全球立法的统一需要漫长而艰苦的努力,而此部分建议仅作为立法参考,力图对国际实践尤其是我国将来的立法产生积极意义。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2011
【分类号】：D996;D922.295

【参考文献】