Debt collection is an important part of the consumer credit ecosystem, but has received little attention in the economics literature. Regulations on collection practices can protect consumers, but may also lead to unintended consequences if the costs of better practices are passed on to creditors, who in turn restrict consumers' credit access or raise prices. Using detailed data on new credit card accounts, we study the effects of four recent state laws and regulations that instituted conduct restrictions. We find that such restrictions reduce access to credit card accounts and raise interest rates, but that this effect is very small.
{"title":"The Effect of Debt Collection Laws on Access to Credit","authors":"Ryan Sandler, Charles J. Romeo","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3124954","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3124954","url":null,"abstract":"Debt collection is an important part of the consumer credit ecosystem, but has received little attention in the economics literature. Regulations on collection practices can protect consumers, but may also lead to unintended consequences if the costs of better practices are passed on to creditors, who in turn restrict consumers' credit access or raise prices. Using detailed data on new credit card accounts, we study the effects of four recent state laws and regulations that instituted conduct restrictions. We find that such restrictions reduce access to credit card accounts and raise interest rates, but that this effect is very small.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88515259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
English Abstract: The pari passu fallacy, first uncloaked in 2000, holds that when a sovereign borrower promises to maintain the equal ranking of a debt with the borrower's other senior indebtedness, it thereby implicitly promises to pay all of those debts on a ratable basis. In its 18-year life span, the fallacy caused considerable mischief in the sovereign debt market. Recent decisions of the US federal courts in New York have clarified the circumstances in which a sovereign borrower will be held to breach, and just as importantly when it will be held not to breach, a contractual pari passu undertaking. Spanish Abstract: La falacia pari passu fue esgrimida por vez primera en el ano 2000. Segun esta falacia, cuando un deudor soberano promete mantener una deuda en igualdad de condiciones que sus otras deudas preferentes, implicitamente promete que pagara todas sus deudas de forma prorrateada. Durante su larga vigencia de 18 anos, esta falacia ha causado problemas considerables en los mercados de deuda soberana. Sin embargo, decisiones recientes de los tribunales federales norteamericanos con jurisdiccion en Nueva York han aclarado las circunstancias segun las cuales se considerara que un deudor soberano ha incumplido e, igualmente importante, cuando se considera que no ha incumplido la obligacion contractual pari passu.
摘要:同等权益谬论于2000年首次被发现，该谬论认为，当主权借款人承诺将某项债务与其他优先债务保持同等的排名时，它就隐含地承诺将按税率支付所有这些债务。这一谬论在其18年的历史中，给主权债务市场造成了相当大的破坏。美国纽约联邦法院最近的判决，澄清了主权借款人在何种情况下会被判违约，以及同样重要的是，在何种情况下会被判不违约。摘要/ Abstract摘要:2000年1月1日，黄豆病(La falacia pari passu fuu esgrimida porvez primera)发生。第2条规定:依照法律规定，依照法律规定，依照法律规定，依照法律规定，依照法律规定，依照法律规定，依照法律规定，依照法律规定，依照法律规定。Durante su larga vigencia de 18 anos, esta falacia, causado问题是相当可观的在许多mercados de deuda soberana。在禁运情况下，北美联邦法庭对新纽约的管辖权作出的决定，与对新纽约的管辖权的决定相比，对新纽约的管辖权的决定比对新纽约的管辖权的决定更重要，对新纽约的管辖权的决定更重要，对新纽约的管辖权的决定更重要，对新纽约的管辖权的决定更重要，对新纽约的管辖权的决定比对新纽约的管辖权的决定更重要。
{"title":"The Pari Passu Fallacy -- Requiescat in Pace (La Falacia pari-passu -- Descanse en paz)","authors":"L. Buchheit","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3108862","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3108862","url":null,"abstract":"English Abstract: The pari passu fallacy, first uncloaked in 2000, holds that when a sovereign borrower promises to maintain the equal ranking of a debt with the borrower's other senior indebtedness, it thereby implicitly promises to pay all of those debts on a ratable basis. In its 18-year life span, the fallacy caused considerable mischief in the sovereign debt market. Recent decisions of the US federal courts in New York have clarified the circumstances in which a sovereign borrower will be held to breach, and just as importantly when it will be held not to breach, a contractual pari passu undertaking. \u0000Spanish Abstract: La falacia pari passu fue esgrimida por vez primera en el ano 2000. Segun esta falacia, cuando un deudor soberano promete mantener una deuda en igualdad de condiciones que sus otras deudas preferentes, implicitamente promete que pagara todas sus deudas de forma prorrateada. Durante su larga vigencia de 18 anos, esta falacia ha causado problemas considerables en los mercados de deuda soberana. Sin embargo, decisiones recientes de los tribunales federales norteamericanos con jurisdiccion en Nueva York han aclarado las circunstancias segun las cuales se considerara que un deudor soberano ha incumplido e, igualmente importante, cuando se considera que no ha incumplido la obligacion contractual pari passu.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87461905","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Korean Abstract: 통합도산법(2006년 시행)에서 원칙적으로 회생기업의 기존 경영자가 법정 관리인이 되는 기존 경영자 관리인(DIP) 제도를 시행한지 10년이 넘어가는 동안 동 제도의 개선 필요성이 꾸준히 제기되고 있다. 한편으로는 기존 경영자가 경영권을 박탈당하지 않도록 하여 신속한 회생절차를 밟을 수 있는 측면이 있었던 반면 입법 취지와는 달리 동 제도를 채무면탈, 경영권 유지라는 목적으로 악용한 사례도 적지 않았다. 이에 따라 학계, 국회, 금융권 등에서 동 제도의 개선이 필요하다는 주장이 꾸준히 제기되고 있다. 한편 경제학적인 관점에서 정상기업을 대상으로 기업지배구조가 경영성과 등에 미치는 영향에 대해서는 많은 연구가 이루어지고 있는 반면 회생기업의 지배구조가 동 기업의 경영성과 등에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구는 찾아볼 수 없었다. 따라서 본 고에서는 회생기업의 지배구조라고 할 수 있는 DIP 제도가 회생기업의 경영성과 등에 미치는 영향을 분석해 보았다. 기업지배구조와 기업의 경영성과 간의 내생성 문제를 극복하기 위해 성향점수(propensity score)법을 주된 분석방법으로 하여 분석해 본 결과 DIP 제도를 적용받은 기업들의 기회주의적 이익조정행위는 감소한 것으로 나타났으나 경영성과 측면에서는 DIP 제도를 적용받은 기업들의 실적이 그렇지 않은 기업에 비해 더 악화되거나 통계적으로 차이가 나지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 DIP 제도를 적용받는 기업이 법원의 통제로 인해 이익조정행위를 할 수 없었으나 기업회생을 위한 노력은 부족했음을 시사한다. 이는 다음과 같은 시사점을 제시한다. 첫째, DIP 제도 시행 이후 기업회생을 신청한 기업수가 크게 증가하고 있으나 DIP 제도 적용기업의 경영성과가 뚜렷이 개선되고 있는 모습이 보이지 않으므로 기업구조조정이라는 큰 틀에서 동 제도의 개선을 위한 노력이 필요하다고 보인다. 둘째, 좀 더 구체적인 관점에서 기존 경영자의 도덕적 해이를 억제할 수 있도록 법, 제도 측면에서 채권자 협의회 기능의 강화 및 신용평가사, 투자회사 등 시장참가자들의 채무자 감시 능력을 향상시킬 필요가 있겠다. English Abstract: It has been 10 years since implementation of the Debtor in Possession (DIP), under which in principle the original management becomes legal administrators under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. While this institution prevents original management from being deprived of their management rights and thus helps the corporates to go through prompt rehabilitation procedures, there have been more than a few cases of abuse of the institution in order to obtain debt relief and maintain control over the corporates. Accordingly, opinions calling for improvement of the institution have been steadily raised, in academia, the National Assembly and the financial sector. Meanwhile, there have been a number of papers from the economics perspective on the effects of corporate governance on the business performances of normal firms. However, it is hard to find studies of such effects on the performances of rehabilitated corporates. This paper has therefore analyzed the effects on rehabilitated firms’ business results of the DIP, which could be regarded as a form of corporate governance of them. To deal with the issue of endogeneity between corporate governance and firms’ business performances, we have used propensity score analysis as our main analysis methodology. According to our analysis, opportunistic profit adjustment practices of corporations have declined under the DIP. However, the business performances of the corporates rehabilitated under the DIP have either worsened compared to those of firms without the DIP application or there have been no significant statistical differences between them. These results imply that corporates under the DIP have been unable to adjust their profits due to the court’s control, but that their efforts to rehabilitate themselves have been insufficient. This result has the following implications. First, since the DIP was implemented, the number of firms tha
Korean Abstract:在《综合破产法》(2006年实行)中，原则上实行回生企业的现有经营者担任法定管理人的现有经营者管理(DIP)制度已经过了10年，因此不断有人提出改善该制度的必要性。另外，为了不让现有的经营者被剥夺经营权，可以迅速进入回生程序，但与立法宗旨相反，将该制度恶意利用为逃避债务、维持经营权的事例也不少。对此，学界、国会、金融圈等不断提出有必要改善该制度的主张。另外，从经济学角度看，以正常企业为对象，对企业支配结构对经营成果等产生的影响进行了很多研究，但却找不到回生企业的支配结构对该企业的经营成果等产生的影响的研究。因此，本高中分析了可称为回生企业支配结构的DIP制度对回生企业的经营成果等产生的影响。企业支配结构和企业的经营成果之间的内生为克服性问题倾向分数(propensity score)法为主要的分析方法,分析结果被采取dip制度企业的机会主义이익조정行为虽然出现减少,但经营成果方面,适用dip制度是企业的业绩,否则企业相比,更加恶化或没有统计上的差异——编者注】。这样的结果表明，虽然适用DIP制度的企业因法院的控制，无法进行利益调整行为，但是对于企业回生的努力却不足。这给了我们以下启示。第一，实行DIP制度以后，申请企业回生的企业数虽然大幅增加，但是适用DIP制度的企业的经营成果并没有明显的改善，因此在企业结构调整的大框架下，有必要为改善该制度而努力。第二，从更具体的观点出发，为抑制现有经营者的道德败坏现象，有必要从法律、制度方面加强债权人协议会的功能，并提高信用评价公司、投资公司等市场参与者对债务人的监视能力。english abstract:It has been 10 years since implementation of the Debtor in Possession (DIP);under which in principle the original management becomes legal administrators under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act。While this institution prevents original management from being deprived of their management rights and thus helps the corporates to go through prompt rehabilitation procedures;there have been more than a few cases of abuse of the institution in order to obtain debt relief and maintain control over the corporates。Accordingly, opinions calling for improvement of the institution have been steadily raised, in academia, the National Assembly and the financial sector。there have been a number of papers from the economics perspective on the effects of corporate governance on the business performances of normal firms。However, it is hard to find studies of such effects on the performances of rehabilitated corporates。This paper has therefore analyzed the effects on rehabilitated firms ' business results of the DIP, which could be regarded as a form of corporate governance of them。To deal with the issue of endogeneity between corporate governance and firms ' business performances, we have used propensity score analysis as our main analysis methodology。According to our analysis, opportunistic profit adjustment practices of corporations have declined under the DIP。however,the business performances of the corporates rehabilitated under the DIP have either worsened compared to those of firms without the DIP application or there have been no significant statisticaldifferences between them。These results imply that corporates under the DIP have been unable to adjust their profits due to the court ' s control, but that their efforts to rehabilitate themselves have been insufficient。This result has the following implications。First, since the DIP was implemented, the number of firms that applied for corporate rehabilitation has surged;but as there have been no remarkable improvements in the business performances of corporations under the DIP;such that it is necessary to make efforts to enhance the DIP from the overall standpoint of corporate restructuring。Second, from a more detailed perspective, in order to keep management ' s moral hazard in check;it is necessary to strengthen th
{"title":"기존 경영자 관리인(Dip) 제도의 회생기업 경영성과에 대한 영향 (The Effect of the Dip on the Business Performances of Rehabilitated Corporates)","authors":"Y. Choi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3090112","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3090112","url":null,"abstract":"Korean Abstract: 통합도산법(2006년 시행)에서 원칙적으로 회생기업의 기존 경영자가 법정 관리인이 되는 기존 경영자 관리인(DIP) 제도를 시행한지 10년이 넘어가는 동안 동 제도의 개선 필요성이 꾸준히 제기되고 있다. 한편으로는 기존 경영자가 경영권을 박탈당하지 않도록 하여 신속한 회생절차를 밟을 수 있는 측면이 있었던 반면 입법 취지와는 달리 동 제도를 채무면탈, 경영권 유지라는 목적으로 악용한 사례도 적지 않았다. 이에 따라 학계, 국회, 금융권 등에서 동 제도의 개선이 필요하다는 주장이 꾸준히 제기되고 있다. \u0000한편 경제학적인 관점에서 정상기업을 대상으로 기업지배구조가 경영성과 등에 미치는 영향에 대해서는 많은 연구가 이루어지고 있는 반면 회생기업의 지배구조가 동 기업의 경영성과 등에 미치는 영향에 대한 연구는 찾아볼 수 없었다. 따라서 본 고에서는 회생기업의 지배구조라고 할 수 있는 DIP 제도가 회생기업의 경영성과 등에 미치는 영향을 분석해 보았다. \u0000기업지배구조와 기업의 경영성과 간의 내생성 문제를 극복하기 위해 성향점수(propensity score)법을 주된 분석방법으로 하여 분석해 본 결과 DIP 제도를 적용받은 기업들의 기회주의적 이익조정행위는 감소한 것으로 나타났으나 경영성과 측면에서는 DIP 제도를 적용받은 기업들의 실적이 그렇지 않은 기업에 비해 더 악화되거나 통계적으로 차이가 나지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 이러한 결과는 DIP 제도를 적용받는 기업이 법원의 통제로 인해 이익조정행위를 할 수 없었으나 기업회생을 위한 노력은 부족했음을 시사한다. \u0000이는 다음과 같은 시사점을 제시한다. 첫째, DIP 제도 시행 이후 기업회생을 신청한 기업수가 크게 증가하고 있으나 DIP 제도 적용기업의 경영성과가 뚜렷이 개선되고 있는 모습이 보이지 않으므로 기업구조조정이라는 큰 틀에서 동 제도의 개선을 위한 노력이 필요하다고 보인다. 둘째, 좀 더 구체적인 관점에서 기존 경영자의 도덕적 해이를 억제할 수 있도록 법, 제도 측면에서 채권자 협의회 기능의 강화 및 신용평가사, 투자회사 등 시장참가자들의 채무자 감시 능력을 향상시킬 필요가 있겠다. \u0000English Abstract: It has been 10 years since implementation of the Debtor in Possession (DIP), under which in principle the original management becomes legal administrators under the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. While this institution prevents original management from being deprived of their management rights and thus helps the corporates to go through prompt rehabilitation procedures, there have been more than a few cases of abuse of the institution in order to obtain debt relief and maintain control over the corporates. Accordingly, opinions calling for improvement of the institution have been steadily raised, in academia, the National Assembly and the financial sector. \u0000Meanwhile, there have been a number of papers from the economics perspective on the effects of corporate governance on the business performances of normal firms. However, it is hard to find studies of such effects on the performances of rehabilitated corporates. This paper has therefore analyzed the effects on rehabilitated firms’ business results of the DIP, which could be regarded as a form of corporate governance of them. \u0000To deal with the issue of endogeneity between corporate governance and firms’ business performances, we have used propensity score analysis as our main analysis methodology. According to our analysis, opportunistic profit adjustment practices of corporations have declined under the DIP. However, the business performances of the corporates rehabilitated under the DIP have either worsened compared to those of firms without the DIP application or there have been no significant statistical differences between them. These results imply that corporates under the DIP have been unable to adjust their profits due to the court’s control, but that their efforts to rehabilitate themselves have been insufficient. \u0000This result has the following implications. First, since the DIP was implemented, the number of firms tha","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87569729","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cross-border insolvency law scholars have devoted much attention to theoretical questions of international system design. There is a general consensus in the literature that the ideal system would be a universalist system in which cross-border insolvencies would be administered in a single forum under a single governing law But scholars have paid less systematic attention to how a universalist system can be implemented in the real world by institutional actors such as legislatures and judges. This article seeks to redress the balance by discussing the reception of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency in the United States and the United Kingdom and exploring the role that judges play in harmonizing cross-border insolvency law. As the Model Law is choice-of-law neutral, domestic enactments typically contain no express choice-of-law rules. Universalists urge judges to take their cue from modified universalism and interpret Model Law enactments in a manner that approximates to universalism’s ideal “one court, one law” approach. But comparative analysis of Anglo-American judicial practice reveals that the contours of modified universalism are contested. “Modified universalism” as it is understood in the United States implies that judges should presumptively defer to the law of the foreign insolvency proceeding (lex concursus). American universalists tend therefore to favor a strong, centralizing version of modified universalism. By contrast, British modified universalism has a forum law (lex fori) choice-of-law orientation. British modified universalism supports effective coordination of insolvency proceedings with one court having a primary coordinating role. But it lacks any commitment to a centralizing lex concursus rule in the absence of statutory mandate. Framed by reference to this account of the Model Law’s Anglo-American reception, the article argues that modified universalism offers no convincing theory of how a universalist system is to be institutionalized in practice in the absence of more and harder law, the province of legislatures. Competing versions of modified universalism cannot support an interpretive methodology capable of yielding global judge-made rules of private international law that would address the Model Law’s choice-of-law indeterminacy.
{"title":"Modified Universalisms & the Role of Local Legal Culture in the Making of Cross-Border Insolvency Law","authors":"A. Walters","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3084117","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3084117","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-border insolvency law scholars have devoted much attention to theoretical questions of international system design. There is a general consensus in the literature that the ideal system would be a universalist system in which cross-border insolvencies would be administered in a single forum under a single governing law But scholars have paid less systematic attention to how a universalist system can be implemented in the real world by institutional actors such as legislatures and judges. This article seeks to redress the balance by discussing the reception of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency in the United States and the United Kingdom and exploring the role that judges play in harmonizing cross-border insolvency law. \u0000As the Model Law is choice-of-law neutral, domestic enactments typically contain no express choice-of-law rules. Universalists urge judges to take their cue from modified universalism and interpret Model Law enactments in a manner that approximates to universalism’s ideal “one court, one law” approach. But comparative analysis of Anglo-American judicial practice reveals that the contours of modified universalism are contested. “Modified universalism” as it is understood in the United States implies that judges should presumptively defer to the law of the foreign insolvency proceeding (lex concursus). American universalists tend therefore to favor a strong, centralizing version of modified universalism. By contrast, British modified universalism has a forum law (lex fori) choice-of-law orientation. British modified universalism supports effective coordination of insolvency proceedings with one court having a primary coordinating role. But it lacks any commitment to a centralizing lex concursus rule in the absence of statutory mandate. \u0000Framed by reference to this account of the Model Law’s Anglo-American reception, the article argues that modified universalism offers no convincing theory of how a universalist system is to be institutionalized in practice in the absence of more and harder law, the province of legislatures. Competing versions of modified universalism cannot support an interpretive methodology capable of yielding global judge-made rules of private international law that would address the Model Law’s choice-of-law indeterminacy.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68551495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Cognizance and trial related matters in Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
《印度破产与破产法》，2016。
{"title":"Who Will Take Cognizance of Insolvency Offences","authors":"R. Singh","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3074449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3074449","url":null,"abstract":"Cognizance and trial related matters in Indian Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83587704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Portuguese Abstract: A Lei de Recuperação de Empresas e Falência brasileira, Lei 11.101/05, submeteu à recuperação judicial todos os créditos existentes à data do pedido, sejam vencidos ou vincendos. O conceito de crédito existente para a sujeição à recuperação judicial, entretanto, pode não ser de fácil apreensão. O surgimento do crédito pode não coincidir com a celebração do negócio jurídico que lhe origina. No negócio jurídico sob condição suspensiva, se o evento futuro e incerto previsto contratualmente ocorrer somente após a distribuição do pedido de recuperação, o direito de crédito surgirá apenas a partir dessa ocorrência e não estará sujeito à recuperação. Por sua vez, mesmo o conceito de crédito existente para a submissão à recuperação judicial exige interpretação não isolada da Lei 11.101/05, mas em harmonia às demais normas do direito privado. Nos contratos de duração, sejam de execução periódica ou de execução continuada, embora as prestações possam se multiplicar e ser reciprocamente dependentes da prestação do outro contratante, o direito de crédito surge a partir da celebração do negócio jurídico. A sujeição desse crédito existente à recuperação judicial, contudo, imporia onerosidade excessiva ao credor e poderia comprometer a própria finalidade do instituto da recuperação judicial. English Abstract: This paper aims at analyzing how claims arising from complex agreements, such as the ones under suspensive condition, should be ranked in a reorganization scenario according to the provisions of the Brazilian Bankruptcy Law 11.101/05.
{"title":"Créditos vencidos e vincendos na recuperação judicial: o negócio jurídico sob condição suspensiva e o contrato bilateral (Matured and Unmatured Claims in Reorganization Proceedings: An Analysis of Agreements Under Suspensive Condition and Bilateral Contracts)","authors":"M. Sacramone, F. Piva","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3124226","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3124226","url":null,"abstract":"<b>Portuguese Abstract:</b> A Lei de Recuperação de Empresas e Falência brasileira, Lei 11.101/05, submeteu à recuperação judicial todos os créditos existentes à data do pedido, sejam vencidos ou vincendos. O conceito de crédito existente para a sujeição à recuperação judicial, entretanto, pode não ser de fácil apreensão. O surgimento do crédito pode não coincidir com a celebração do negócio jurídico que lhe origina. No negócio jurídico sob condição suspensiva, se o evento futuro e incerto previsto contratualmente ocorrer somente após a distribuição do pedido de recuperação, o direito de crédito surgirá apenas a partir dessa ocorrência e não estará sujeito à recuperação. Por sua vez, mesmo o conceito de crédito existente para a submissão à recuperação judicial exige interpretação não isolada da Lei 11.101/05, mas em harmonia às demais normas do direito privado. Nos contratos de duração, sejam de execução periódica ou de execução continuada, embora as prestações possam se multiplicar e ser reciprocamente dependentes da prestação do outro contratante, o direito de crédito surge a partir da celebração do negócio jurídico. A sujeição desse crédito existente à recuperação judicial, contudo, imporia onerosidade excessiva ao credor e poderia comprometer a própria finalidade do instituto da recuperação judicial. <b>English Abstract:</b> This paper aims at analyzing how claims arising from complex agreements, such as the ones under suspensive condition, should be ranked in a reorganization scenario according to the provisions of the Brazilian Bankruptcy Law 11.101/05.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75162680","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This Working Paper addresses Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) and National Oil Company (NOC) fully owned by Venezuela, which operates the oil and gas industry in the country, and its eventual insolvency and default on its payments obligations due under its current financial indebtedness. In particular, the Working Paper examines (i) the nature of PDVSA as a SOE, (ii) its ability to fail or be subject to insolvency proceedings, before Venezuelan courts; and (iii) how would an eventual insolvency and default on its external indebtedness would need to be conducted in the country. Two particular questions constitute the focus of the analysis: Can PDVSA actually go bankrupt? And, how would a prospective PDVSA’s bankruptcy proceeding be conducted in Venezuela?
本工作文件涉及Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA)，一家由委内瑞拉全资拥有的国有企业(SOE)和国家石油公司(NOC)，该公司在该国经营石油和天然气行业，以及其最终的破产和当前金融债务下到期付款义务的违约。具体而言，工作文件审查了(i) PDVSA作为国有企业的性质，(ii)其在委内瑞拉法院破产或面临破产程序的能力;(三)该国最终的破产和外债违约需要如何进行。两个问题构成了分析的重点:PDVSA真的会破产吗?而且，PDVSA在委内瑞拉的破产程序将如何进行?
{"title":"PDVSA's Bankruptcy: A Look from Venezuelan Law, in the Context of a Default","authors":"Roland Pettersson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3064214","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3064214","url":null,"abstract":"This Working Paper addresses Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) and National Oil Company (NOC) fully owned by Venezuela, which operates the oil and gas industry in the country, and its eventual insolvency and default on its payments obligations due under its current financial indebtedness. In particular, the Working Paper examines (i) the nature of PDVSA as a SOE, (ii) its ability to fail or be subject to insolvency proceedings, before Venezuelan courts; and (iii) how would an eventual insolvency and default on its external indebtedness would need to be conducted in the country. Two particular questions constitute the focus of the analysis: Can PDVSA actually go bankrupt? And, how would a prospective PDVSA’s bankruptcy proceeding be conducted in Venezuela?","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85997203","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-11-01DOI: 10.4337/9781781007884.00015
George G. Triantis
This chapter is forthcoming in an edited research handbook on corporate bankruptcy law. It reviews the theoretical and empirical scholarship on debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, particularly as it bears on the more controversial features of DIP loans: financial terms such as cross-collateralization, roll-ups and avoidance protection, and control provisions in covenants that impose milestones and deadlines on the bankruptcy process. The paper highlights two fundamental challenges: what contract provisions are needed to mitigate the liquidity problem of the distressed debtor and whether these provisions lead to an inefficient distortion of asset-deployment decisions in bankruptcy.
{"title":"Debtor-in-Possession Financing in Bankruptcy","authors":"George G. Triantis","doi":"10.4337/9781781007884.00015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781007884.00015","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter is forthcoming in an edited research handbook on corporate bankruptcy law. It reviews the theoretical and empirical scholarship on debtor-in-possession (DIP) financing, particularly as it bears on the more controversial features of DIP loans: financial terms such as cross-collateralization, roll-ups and avoidance protection, and control provisions in covenants that impose milestones and deadlines on the bankruptcy process. The paper highlights two fundamental challenges: what contract provisions are needed to mitigate the liquidity problem of the distressed debtor and whether these provisions lead to an inefficient distortion of asset-deployment decisions in bankruptcy.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73431966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper analyses the issue of dealing with the new virtual secondary insolvency proceedings according to Article 36 EIR (recast). Currently, it appears the most urgent question for insolvency practitioners (IP) is the preparation of such virtual proceedings. As the undertaking requires comprehensive preparation, also in order to avoid personal liability pursuant to Article 36(10) EIR, the article outlines first steps for preparation. If these first steps fail, the undertaking does not even reach the next step: the proposal and approval. Hence, on the one hand the IP must take the preparation seriously; on the other hand, the court should grant appropriate time for the preparation if requested by the IP pursuant to Article 38(3) EIR mutatis mutandis.
{"title":"Preparation of Virtual Secondary Insolvency Proceedings Under the Recast EIR","authors":"Dominik Skauradszun","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3024220","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3024220","url":null,"abstract":"This paper analyses the issue of dealing with the new virtual secondary insolvency proceedings according to Article 36 EIR (recast). Currently, it appears the most urgent question for insolvency practitioners (IP) is the preparation of such virtual proceedings. As the undertaking requires comprehensive preparation, also in order to avoid personal liability pursuant to Article 36(10) EIR, the article outlines first steps for preparation. If these first steps fail, the undertaking does not even reach the next step: the proposal and approval. Hence, on the one hand the IP must take the preparation seriously; on the other hand, the court should grant appropriate time for the preparation if requested by the IP pursuant to Article 38(3) EIR mutatis mutandis.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75021298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Creditors who extend credit or otherwise become entitled to payment of obligations owed by debtors have various legal rights and expectations, mostly to collect those obligations in due course based on agreement or operation of law. Debtors are personally and legally obligated to pay obligations they incur. When debtors default with respect to payment of those obligations, creditors generally have the right to bring a legal cause of action against those debtors and acquire a judgment. Failure by the debtor to pay the judgment gives the judgment creditor the right to exercise various post-judgment remedies to collect the judgment, including attachment and foreclosure of nonexempt property owned by the debtor. When a debtor is married, issues arise with regard to whether the judgment creditor can attach property owned in whole or in part by the debtor’s spouse. There exist two separate types of marital property regimes in the United States. The most common of these is the common law property system adopted from the laws of England. In general, when only one spouse is personally liable for an obligation, a judgment creditor cannot attach property owned by the other spouse to satisfy the judgment. Spouses in common law property jurisdictions are treated as separate persons with regard to obligations incurred by only one of them during the marriage. The second type of marital property regime used by nine of the states is the community property system, adopted from Spanish law. In this system, marital property is characterized as either separate property of one spouse or community property. Separate property is treated generally as if the spouses are single and not married. As a consequence, with respect to obligations for which only one spouse is personally liable, separate property in the community property system is treated generally the same as marital property in the common law property system. A judgment creditor cannot attach separate property owned by the other spouse to satisfy the judgment. Community property is treated as if each spouse owns an undivided one-half interest in such property. A significant issue in the community property system is to what extent a judgment creditor with respect to an obligation for which only one spouse is personally liable can attach community property to satisfy the judgment. The nine community property states have adopted a variety of distinct rules with regard to this issue. Some jurisdictions have adopted rules that are extremely friendly to creditors, allowing the attachment of virtually any nonexempt community property to satisfy a judgment for which only one spouse is personally liable, regardless of whether the underlying debt was incurred before or during the marriage. Other jurisdictions have adopted rules that are more restrictive with regard to creditors, preventing the attachment of certain community property based on a variety of factors. Part II of this Article will provide a review of the ru
{"title":"Rights of Creditors to Collect Marital Debts after Divorce in Community Property Jurisdictions","authors":"James L. Musselman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2997225","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2997225","url":null,"abstract":"Creditors who extend credit or otherwise become entitled to payment of obligations owed by debtors have various legal rights and expectations, mostly to collect those obligations in due course based on agreement or operation of law. Debtors are personally and legally obligated to pay obligations they incur. When debtors default with respect to payment of those obligations, creditors generally have the right to bring a legal cause of action against those debtors and acquire a judgment. Failure by the debtor to pay the judgment gives the judgment creditor the right to exercise various post-judgment remedies to collect the judgment, including attachment and foreclosure of nonexempt property owned by the debtor. \u0000When a debtor is married, issues arise with regard to whether the judgment creditor can attach property owned in whole or in part by the debtor’s spouse. There exist two separate types of marital property regimes in the United States. The most common of these is the common law property system adopted from the laws of England. In general, when only one spouse is personally liable for an obligation, a judgment creditor cannot attach property owned by the other spouse to satisfy the judgment. Spouses in common law property jurisdictions are treated as separate persons with regard to obligations incurred by only one of them during the marriage. \u0000The second type of marital property regime used by nine of the states is the community property system, adopted from Spanish law. In this system, marital property is characterized as either separate property of one spouse or community property. Separate property is treated generally as if the spouses are single and not married. As a consequence, with respect to obligations for which only one spouse is personally liable, separate property in the community property system is treated generally the same as marital property in the common law property system. A judgment creditor cannot attach separate property owned by the other spouse to satisfy the judgment. Community property is treated as if each spouse owns an undivided one-half interest in such property. A significant issue in the community property system is to what extent a judgment creditor with respect to an obligation for which only one spouse is personally liable can attach community property to satisfy the judgment. \u0000The nine community property states have adopted a variety of distinct rules with regard to this issue. Some jurisdictions have adopted rules that are extremely friendly to creditors, allowing the attachment of virtually any nonexempt community property to satisfy a judgment for which only one spouse is personally liable, regardless of whether the underlying debt was incurred before or during the marriage. Other jurisdictions have adopted rules that are more restrictive with regard to creditors, preventing the attachment of certain community property based on a variety of factors. Part II of this Article will provide a review of the ru","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"68 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76852402","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：