破产重整强裁中司法标准的反思与完善
|
摘要
重整强裁的预设价值目标实现与强裁司法判断权的合理规制,离不开科学完善的司法判断标准,而现有的司法标准立法存在着可行性标准条文宽泛、绝对优先标准半缺失等情况,使司法实践中强制批准权为所谓保护社会利益而被滥用误用的现象较为突出。债权人的正当利益经常没有获得公平维护,与债务人之间的利益难以获得有效平衡。立法者应当及时修订对司法判断标准的规定,特别是推动绝对优先标准全面适用、细化可行性标准判断因素等,还可以借鉴引入域外新发展的新价值例外和无歧视标准。在司法标准规定完善之外,由法院通过调整司法实践把握相关司法标准适用的理念目标,从而促使未来能够形成科学合理的司法标准体系。
The realization of the default value for bankruptcy reorganization cram-down and the rational regulation of the power of judicial judgment are inseparable from the scientific and systematic judicial judgment standards. However, the existing judicial standards legislation has such problems as broad provisions of feasibility standards and semi-missing of absolute priority standards, which make the phenomenon of cramdown in judicial practice being abused and misused for the so-called protection of social interests. Therefore,the legitimate interests of creditors are often not fairly maintained, so it is difficult to achieve an effective balance with the interests of debtors. Legislators should promptly revise the provisions on judicial judgment standards, especially promote the full application of absolute priority standards, refine the judgment criteria of feasibility standards, etc., and learn from the new value exceptions and non-discrimination standards which are the new developments outside the domain. In addition to the perfection of judicial standards, the courts grasp the conceptual objectives applicable to relevant judicial standards by adjusting judicial practice, so as to promote the formation of a scientific and reasonable judicial standards system in the future.
The realization of the default value for bankruptcy reorganization cram-down and the rational regulation of the power of judicial judgment are inseparable from the scientific and systematic judicial judgment standards. However, the existing judicial standards legislation has such problems as broad provisions of feasibility standards and semi-missing of absolute priority standards, which make the phenomenon of cramdown in judicial practice being abused and misused for the so-called protection of social interests. Therefore,the legitimate interests of creditors are often not fairly maintained, so it is difficult to achieve an effective balance with the interests of debtors. Legislators should promptly revise the provisions on judicial judgment standards, especially promote the full application of absolute priority standards, refine the judgment criteria of feasibility standards, etc., and learn from the new value exceptions and non-discrimination standards which are the new developments outside the domain. In addition to the perfection of judicial standards, the courts grasp the conceptual objectives applicable to relevant judicial standards by adjusting judicial practice, so as to promote the formation of a scientific and reasonable judicial standards system in the future.
引文
[2]“强制批准”与“强裁”两者具有相同含义,本文根据撰写需要交替使用,特此说明。
[3]张海征、王欣新:《论法院强制批准重整方案制度之完善》,《首都师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2014年第4期,第67页。
[4]辛欣:《我国破产重整中强制批准问题探究》,《法律适用》2011年第5期,第58页。
[5]李志强:《关于我国破产重整方案强制批准制度的思考-以债权人利益保护为中心》,《北方法学》2008年第3期,第55页。
[6]《企业破产法》第87条第2款第2项规定:“按照重整计划草案,本法第八十二条第一款第二项、第三项所列债权将获得全额清偿,或者相应表决组已经通过重整计划草案。”
[7]《企业破产法》第87条第2款第3项规定:“按照重整计划草案,普通债权所获得的清偿比例,不低于其在重整计划草案被提请批准时依照破产清算程序所能获得的清偿比例,或者该表决组已经通过重整计划草案。”
[8]武卓:《我国重整方案强制批准制度的完善路径》,《中国政法大学学报》2017年第3期,第94页。
[9]参见江西省新余市中级人民法院(2015)余破字第4-14号。
[10]王建平:《破产重整方案批准制度及反思》,《人民司法(应用)》2010年第23期,第55页。
[11]任永青:《绝对优先原则与我国破产法的缺失》,《河北法学》2011年第10期,第125页。
[3]张海征、王欣新:《论法院强制批准重整方案制度之完善》,《首都师范大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2014年第4期,第67页。
[4]辛欣:《我国破产重整中强制批准问题探究》,《法律适用》2011年第5期,第58页。
[5]李志强:《关于我国破产重整方案强制批准制度的思考-以债权人利益保护为中心》,《北方法学》2008年第3期,第55页。
[6]《企业破产法》第87条第2款第2项规定:“按照重整计划草案,本法第八十二条第一款第二项、第三项所列债权将获得全额清偿,或者相应表决组已经通过重整计划草案。”
[7]《企业破产法》第87条第2款第3项规定:“按照重整计划草案,普通债权所获得的清偿比例,不低于其在重整计划草案被提请批准时依照破产清算程序所能获得的清偿比例,或者该表决组已经通过重整计划草案。”
[8]武卓:《我国重整方案强制批准制度的完善路径》,《中国政法大学学报》2017年第3期,第94页。
[9]参见江西省新余市中级人民法院(2015)余破字第4-14号。
[10]王建平:《破产重整方案批准制度及反思》,《人民司法(应用)》2010年第23期,第55页。
[11]任永青:《绝对优先原则与我国破产法的缺失》,《河北法学》2011年第10期,第125页。