破产原因的反思与解析——兼对《企业破产法》第2条的解读

破产原因是债务人是否被宣告破产的关键,其破产原因的法律界定影响着破产法维护社会经济秩序功能的发挥。从破产原因的一般理论出发,借鉴国外破产原因的立法规定,反思我国1986年破产法中的破产原因,进一步解析2006年《中华人民共和国破产法》第2条,将破产原因区分为不能清偿到期债务且资不抵债和不能清偿到期债务且停止支付两种,分别适用于债务人自愿提出破产申请和债权人提出破产申请的情况。     

论破产中尚未履行完毕的合同

尚未履行完毕的合同在破产中的处置,有不可自由选择和可自由选择两种。不可自由选择的合同的范围,主要是出于维护交易安全和保护合同当事人的预期而划定,如委托合同、附所有权保留的买卖合同、房屋租赁合同和知识产权许可使用合同等。对可自由选择的合同,完善的破产立法一方面应规定选择权,明确其性质,另一方面也应区别不同情形对其做适当的限制,在追求破产财产最大化的同时兼顾合同债权人利益的保护。在上述各个方面,我国《破产法》均有改进的余地。     

Laws, Models, and Real People: Choice of Chapter in Personal Bankruptcy

It has been a central assumption in bankruptcy policy debates that financially troubled persons faced with bankruptcy will respond to economic incentives and disincentives. Two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (Chapters 7 and 13) are most commonly used by individual debtors. Under Chapter 7 debtors agree to give up all their property (n excess of state-determined exemptions) to a trustee for sale and distribution to creditors. Under Chapter 13 debtors keep all their property but agree to pay all or part of their debts over three to five years. This empirical study of fifteen hundred consumers in three states explores whether economic incentives and disincentives are in fact the chief factors influencing choice of chapter. The analysis demonstrates that while economic factors play a part, noneconomic factors are also significant, among them intra- and interstate migration, marital status, self-employment, state of residence, and local legal culture. We conclude that to explore fully how individual decisions are made, the simplistic economic model must be replaced by a more sophisticated model that accounts for both economic and noneconomic factors.     

Theoretical foundation for a debtor friendly bankruptcy law in favour of creditors

Although many works support creditor friendly bankruptcy laws, an evolution towards debtor friendly systems is at work. This paper proposes a theoretical ground to meet this paradox. It reconsiders the economic role of bankruptcy law by stressing on the courts’ production of information. It reveals that the transmission of a lenient signal by judges makes it possible to reduce the hazard that bad risks seek to avoid going on trial. Thus, it shows that debtor friendly bankruptcy laws are not systematically opposed to creditors’ interests. They reduce the risk of the economy and contribute to the improvement of the global efficiency.      

管理人选任制度的反思与重塑

管理人在破产程序中承载着管理、协调与监督的职能,其职责的行使牵涉多方利益。因此,保证管理人身份上的独立、中立以及专业性显得至关重要。现有的中介机构可以分担管理人职责,应当设立管理人协会,负责管理人名册的编制、管理等工作。管理人的法律地位应为法定机构,由人民法院指定并决定其报酬,债权人会议享有异议权。对于＂无产可破＂的案件,建议设立专项基金作为支付管理人报酬的来源。     

Section 525(a) of the bankruptcy code plainly does not apply to Medicare provider agreements

Section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code prevents government entities from discriminating against debtors based on the debtor's bankruptcy filing. This Article analyzes how this provision is applied to healthcare providers who file for bankruptcy. Some commentators have expressed concerns that because of Section 525, the federal government is unable to deny a bankrupt provider a new Medicare provider agreement due to the debtor's failure to pay debts discharged during bankruptcy. This Article, however, argues that Section 525 does not apply to a provider agreements because it is not a "license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant" as defined by the statute. Therefore, the author concludes that debtor healthcare providers should not be allowed back into the Medicare program without first paying their statutorily required debts.     

破产法利益制衡机制论——兼论职工利益保护

破产的直接作用是以国家强制力保障决定市场经济能否正常运转的信用关系的法律制度形式——债,在债务人丧失清偿能力时的最终公平实现,维护全体债权人、债务人的合法权益,维护社会利益,保障正常的经济秩序。可见,破产法的主要价值目标,就是对债权人、债务人、社会利益进行平衡,以维护社会正义。而我国现行破产法体系,却对债权人利益保护不利,社会利益也因行政手段干预而歪曲与异化,债务人利益被弱化,国有资产流失严重,破产利益制衡机制的操作性与透明性被破坏。法律制度的缺陷,导致社会秩序的受损,该破产的不能破产,该保护的不能保护,三角链条的锈化,引起连锁反应的多米诺骨牌效应。可见,在制定新《破产法》的前夕,用破产利益制衡机制重新构架我国破产法体系是必要的。本文对此略作探索,以抛砖引玉。     

When it pays to be honest: How a variable period of good conduct can improve incentives in personal bankruptcy proceedings

Consumer bankruptcy regulation in the United States as well as in many other countries allow consumers to petition for a partial debt discharge. Usually, a debt release is possible when the debtor behaves in the creditors’ best interest and after filing for bankruptcy signs over her entire disposable income for a fixed period. Depending on the country the period lasts between three and six years. We show that a fixed period distorts the consumer’s ex-post incentives to work hard. Instead, we suggest to adequately reduce the outstanding claim and to make debt release contingent on payment. When the consumer manages to pay back the reduced amount, the rest of the initial debt should be discharged immediately. In effect, the consumer becomes the residual claimant of her endeavors. The period of good conduct is effectively variable. JEL classification D18. D91. K29     

Bankruptcy in divorce: The litigation tactic of the angry spouse

A matrimonial proceeding on its own is complex and can have far-reaching implications. Add in a spouse filing for bankruptcy in the midst of the proceeding, and the process becomes even further complicated and quite possibly hostile. This Note analyzes the bad-faith tactics of debtor spouses filing for bankruptcy in the middle of a divorce proceeding and proposes an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code that permits bankruptcy courts to dismiss bad faith petitions before they negatively impact divorce proceedings.     

论自然人破产制度的构建——对《民事诉讼法》第235条的探讨

我国现行的《民事诉讼法》第235条第五项规定,在自然人作为被执行人的案件中,裁定终结执行的依据是该被执行人“生活困难无力偿还借款,无收入来源,又丧失劳动能力”。事实上,这一条并不具有前瞻性,同时在实践中又由于其前瞻性的缺乏,导致许多执行法院在具体的案件中适用此条有困难,仅对类似案件裁定予以“终结本次执行程序”。这种无奈之举不但于法无据,而且是对终结执行本身目的的违背。     

代位请求权情形下仲裁协议的效力问题探讨

我国现行法定条件下的代位权与传统规定有本质区别,债权人行使代位权,无需与债务人达成一致意见;债权人与次债务人之问没有仲裁合意;债权人未成为债务人与次债务人之间合同关系的当事人.而且,仲裁协议对未签署人的约束力不可无限扩大,应该符合仲裁理论的基本原则要求.因此,债权人行使代位权,不瘦受约束于债务人与次债务人之问的仲裁协议.     

Making Sense of the Numbers: The Shift from Non‐consensual to Consensual Debt Relief and the Construction of the Consumer Debtor

This article analyses trends in the number of individual insolvency proceedings in England and Wales, particularly a shift from non‐consensual debt relief to consensual Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) and, connected to that, an increased privatization of the process. Seeking to conceptualize IVA users, it builds on American scholarship linking the development of bankruptcy rates to the construction of the consumer debtor. Based on this theory and empirical evidence, its findings broadly indicate that a majority of IVA users do not match the image of a strategic actor. Rather, they belong to the most vulnerable groups, whose decision in favour of IVAs is the result of external constraints and irrational biases, which commercial providers tend to exploit. Building on this characterization of IVA users, the article contributes to the critical discussion of aforementioned trends, arguing that reforms should be contemplated to partially reverse them.     

Filtering speed in a Continental European reorganization procedure

Recent studies of US Chapter 11 show it to be a relatively efficient procedure. We examine reorganization cases in a Continental European, creditor-oriented bankruptcy system, viz. Belgium, and report very different findings. Using hazard and cure regression models to determine what drives the length of time spent in reorganizations, we find evidence suggesting that courts have little impact on the screening and filtering process. In fact, many drivers of procedure length prove to have the opposite sign of what one would expect if the procedure would efficiently realise its goals. Instead, the procedure appears to be mainly creditor or owner-driven.     

抵押预告登记优先受偿效力的解释论

作为预告登记的一个子类型,按照法教义学的逻辑推演,抵押预告登记并不产生优先受偿效力。但该制度的创设目的在于满足商品房预售交易中当事人的担保需求,若抵押预告登记权利人最终无法实现优先受偿权,这一制度将难以发挥其应有的作用,最终沦为具文。当符合已办理建筑物所有权首次登记且预告登记未失效等条件时,抵押预告登记转本登记的实质条件已满足,允许抵押预告登记权利人直接行使优先受偿权并不违反物权法基本原理。虽然《民法典担保制度解释》最终未对强制执行程序中抵押预告登记的效力作出规定,但不妨碍预告登记权利人依照该司法解释第52条第1款的规定行使优先受偿权。在破产程序中,抵押预告登记权利人行使优先受偿权无须以已办理建筑物所有权首次登记为前提,优先受偿的范围也不应限制在人民法院受理破产申请时抵押财产的价值范围内。     

THE FUTURE OF THE JUVENILE COURT: Implications for Correctional Manpower and Training

The following is an excerpt from a paper prepared for the Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training. This consultants' paper dealing with the area of the Juvenile Court is the first of its type to be published by the Commission. Chapter VI has to do with “DISPOSITIONAL ALTERNATIVES”.     

论破产优先权

破产优先权有其存在的现实基础和立法价值,各国破产立法均予以规定。在我国破产法上,要解决好破产优先权与担保物权的立法协调,把当前最需要保护的工资债权限制性地上升到有担保物权之前受偿。要依法保护优先权并进行合理的限制,建议将人身伤害债权上升到优先权的地位,同时应取消税收优先权。     

论债权人代位诉讼的诉讼标的

我国代位权制度对“入库规则”的放弃,对我国债权人代位诉讼的诉讼标的影响极大,现有的“一 诉讼标的说”和“二诉讼标的说”均难成立,应当采纳新诉讼标的理论和“争点效”理论来解决其诉 讼标的和判决拘束力问题,即债权人代位诉讼的诉讼标的是债权人提出的要求次债务人履行债 务的诉讼请求,而作为基础法律关系的债权人与债务人之间、债务人与次债务人之间的债权债务 关系,则因判决的争点效而具有约束力。     

商合伙破产程序与实体问题研究

正在修订中的我国新《破产法》将赋予商合伙破产能力,其原因在于对破产性质的正确认识,对商合伙民事主体资格、民事诉讼资格的肯认;商合伙破产原因应引入"停止支付"概念,并严格区分合伙与合伙人、合伙财产与合伙人财产;为落实合伙人对合伙债务的无限责任,合伙破产可能导致合伙人连带破产,但应允许合伙人在提供财产以清偿合伙债务后免除连带破产,并应尊重合伙人是否继续保持合伙的意愿;在合伙破产案件受理后应对合伙人财产采取一定破产保全措施,并应确立破产程序中平等保护合伙人债权人的制度与原则。     

试析应收账款受让人与破产管理人的权利冲突

保理中的应收账款转让属于一般债权让与。在供应商破产的情况下,保理商对应收账款的权利与破产管理人的权利发生冲突。美国破产法和《统一商法典》对应收账款转让的调整值得我国破产法借鉴。根据我国破产法的规定,应收账款一般不应作为破产财团,破产管理人不应享有对保理合同的撤销权,保理合同应当继续履行。对该等权利清偿顺序的确定需要建立应收账款转让的适当公示程序,并应当进一步完善破产法中的相关规定,建立一般与例外以及对例外进行限定的完整制度。     

破产法的程序结构与利益平衡机制

我国2006年破产法因在程序设计中采取了“一个大门,三个小门”的设计思路,因而,破产法必然含有破产清算程序、和解程序与重整程序共同适用的部分,也含有各自的特别规定。“三种程序”的共用部分,包括:申请程序;公告与通知程序;管理人及其职责;破产债权;破产债权的申报;债务人的财产;破产费用与共益债务;取回权、抵销权、撤销权;法律责任等。而特别部分包括各种程序的启动主体、启动后的效力、程序之间的转换等。除此以外,因破产法是对债务人财产的一次性概括处理,因此,各种利害关系人的利益冲突在破产法上尤为突出,主要表现在:债权人与债务人之间的利益冲突、债权人与出资人之间的利益冲突、债权人与债权人之间的利益冲突、有担保债权人与无担保债权人之间的利益冲突、申报债权的债权人与未申报债权的债权人利益冲突、共益债权人与一般债权人之间的利益冲突、管理人与债权人之间的利益冲突、职工利益与其他利害关系人利益的冲突等,破产法对于这些利益冲突进行了平衡性制度安排。但在对这些冲突进行了平衡性制度安排的背后,却存在着有争议的价值判断。