论担保物权在破产程序中的实现下(9)

时间:2022-06-13 19:48:41 论文范文 我要投稿
  • 相关推荐

论担保物权在破产程序中的实现(下)


[87] BGH NZI 2002, 599 (560 f.) (Urteil vom 11. 7. 2002 – IX ZR 262/01).
[88] 根据一项经验研究,在美国大型企业破产中,仅有百分之五的案件指定了破产管理人。LoPucki, Corporate Goverance in the Bankruptcy Reorganization of Large, Publicly Held Companies, 141 U. Pa. L. Rev. 669, 699 (1993). 即便在债务人有明显欺诈行为的Enron破产案中,法院也并未指定破产管理人(“如果安然破产都不需要指定破产管理人,那么很难想象还有什么公司非指定破产管理人不可”)。Lynn M. LoPucki, Courting Failure: How Competition for Big Cases Is Corrupting the Bankruptcy Courts, University of Michigan Press, 2005, p. 12.
[89] 11 USC § 1129(a)(11).
[90] Baird, supra note 27, p. 256; Warren et al., supra note 58, p. 701; In re Temple Zion, 125 B.R. 910, 915 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1991); In re Orfa Corp. of Philadelphia, 129 B.R. 404 (Bankr. E.D.Pa 1991); In re Am. Homepatient, Inc., 198 B.R. 152 (Bankr. M.D.Tenn. 2003). 2005年在美国《破产法》的修改中增加了第308条,要求小企业破产重整中,必须向破产法院提供企业的财务信息。
[91] 11 USC § 1129(a)(7)(A)(ii). 这是破产重整的另一项重要标准。虽然文字上的表述清楚明了,但实际操作极为复杂,因为这一判断需要通过对企业资产进行全面评估方能完成,而评估本身是极为灵活的事项。
[92] Baird, supra note, 2006, p. 254 f.; In re HRC Joint Venture, 187 B.R. 202 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1995); In re Am. Homepatient, Inc., 298 B.R. 152 (Bankr. M.D.Tenn. 2003).
[93] Koopmans v. Farm Credit Services of Mid-America, ACA, 102 F.3d 874 (7thCir. 1996); Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1129.06 [1][c] (Rev. 15th ed. 2000).
[94] “…abandonment of the collateral to the creditor would clearly satisfy indubitable equivalence, as would a lien on similar collateral... Unsecured notes as to the secured claim or equity securities of the debtor would not be the indubitable equivalent...” 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6544; Gerard McCormack, Corporate Rescue Law: An Anglo-American Perspective, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008, p. 265.
[95] Warren et al., supra note 58, pp. 711 ff.
[96] 11 USC § 1129(b)(2).
[97] Klee, All You Ever wanted to Know about Cram Down Under the New Bankruptcy Code, 53 Am. Bankr. L. J. 133 (1979).
[98] LoPucki, Bargaining Over Equity's Share in the Bankruptcy Reorganization of Large, Publicly Held Companies, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 125, 149-150 (1990).
[99] Baird, supra note 27, p. 281.
[100] In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., 115 B.R. 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Z. 1990)。也有一些法院对交叉担保持怀疑态度。In re Saybrook Mfg. Co., 963 F.2d 1490 (1992, CA11 Ga).
[101] Dahiya, Debtor-in-Possession Financing and Bankruptcy Resolution: Empirical Evidence, 69 J. Fin. Econ. 259, 265 (2003).
[102] Bris et al., The Costs of Bankruptcy: Chapter 7 Liquidation versus Chapter 11 Reorganization, 61 The Journal of Finance 1253, 1290 (2006).
[103] Frank, An Empiricial Investigation of U.S. Firms in Reorganization, 44 Journal of Finance. 747 (1989).
[104] Ayotte et al., Review: An Efficiency-Based Explanation for Current Corporate Reorganization Practice (Lynn M. LoPucki, Courting Failure, University of Michigan Press, 2005), 73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 425 (2006).
[105] MüKo-Eidenmüller, § 222 InsO Rn. 44; Uhlenbruck-Lüer, § 222 InsO Rn. 20; BGH MDR 2006, 116 (118) (BGH vom 7.7.2005 – IX ZB 266/04).
[106] MüKo-Eidenmüller, § 222 InsO Rn. 29; HK-Flessner, § 222 InsO Rn. 11; Hess/Weis, Die sachgerechte Abgrenzung der Gläubigergruppen nach der InsO, InVo 1998, 64 (67).
[107] Marotzke, Die dinglichen Sicherheiten im neuen Insolvenzrecht, ZZP 1996, 429 (437).
[108] 前引注39, Bork, Rn.336.
[109] Schiessler, Der Insolvenzplan, Bielefeld, 1997, S. 149.
[110] 在德国破产实践中,法院通常不会对被给以利息补偿的担保债权人的投票权提出质疑。LG Göttingen NZI 2005, 41 (42 f.); OLG Köln (Beschluss vom 5. 1. 2001 – 2 W 228 / 00) NZI 2001, 660 ff.
[111] 前引注7,安建书,第150页。
[112] 见《最高人民法院关于审理企业破产案件确定管理人报酬的规定》,第13条。

【论担保物权在破产程序中的实现下】相关文章:

论担保物权在破产程序中的实现(上)论文04-07

论隐喻法语语言教学中的作用论文02-28

论美术教育在素质教育中的作用11-03

论在科学探究中如何培养创新思维04-15

物权行为理论基础概念的逻辑区分论文04-08

论对企业管理在企业中的重要性论文04-18

基于比较法的用益物权经济机能研究论文02-28

论鲁迅创作中的旧文化情结论文(通用8篇)09-21

平面设计中运用虚实相生论的案例及其意义论文11-02

论预付费消费中的消费者权益保护(通用6篇)05-14