把握跨境破产纠纷仲裁的好处

IF 0.6 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW American Bankruptcy Law Journal Pub Date : 2013-10-15 DOI:10.1163/9789004260207_011
E. Sussman, Jennifer L. Permesly
{"title":"把握跨境破产纠纷仲裁的好处","authors":"E. Sussman, Jennifer L. Permesly","doi":"10.1163/9789004260207_011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Insolvency proceedings are often lauded for providing a relatively quick and efficient means of resolving disputes among insolvent debtors and their creditors. Historically, insolvency courts have adhered to the principle of “territoriality,” which posits that bankruptcy proceedings should be brought in the jurisdiction where property or assets of the debtor are located, and that the courts in that forum have jurisdiction and priority over those assets. Based on this principle, in a typical domestic insolvency proceeding, one forum will exercise jurisdiction over the debtor and all of its assets; the adjudicator can thus make decisions that will bind all of the creditors seeking a piece of those assets. The principle of territoriality has become difficult to apply in our increasingly globalized world. Today’s multinational corporations operate in multiple countries and hold assets across the globe. Thus a debtor and its affiliate entities may be subject to multiple insolvency proceedings in various jurisdictions. The efficiency gains of a single-forum insolvency process no longer exist, and instead debtors can find themselves in intractable disputes or subject to inconsistent decisions issued by multiple courts. Over the last two decades, there have been various proposals to address the complications inherent in cross-border insolvency proceedings. In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, which brought a wake of insolvent debtors with massive international presence, the issue has received increased attention. This paper Recently explores several ways in which international arbitration can be used to bring efficiency and consistency to cross-border insolvency proceedings.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2013-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Capturing the Benefits of Arbitration for Cross Border Insolvency Disputes\",\"authors\":\"E. Sussman, Jennifer L. Permesly\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/9789004260207_011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Insolvency proceedings are often lauded for providing a relatively quick and efficient means of resolving disputes among insolvent debtors and their creditors. Historically, insolvency courts have adhered to the principle of “territoriality,” which posits that bankruptcy proceedings should be brought in the jurisdiction where property or assets of the debtor are located, and that the courts in that forum have jurisdiction and priority over those assets. Based on this principle, in a typical domestic insolvency proceeding, one forum will exercise jurisdiction over the debtor and all of its assets; the adjudicator can thus make decisions that will bind all of the creditors seeking a piece of those assets. The principle of territoriality has become difficult to apply in our increasingly globalized world. Today’s multinational corporations operate in multiple countries and hold assets across the globe. Thus a debtor and its affiliate entities may be subject to multiple insolvency proceedings in various jurisdictions. The efficiency gains of a single-forum insolvency process no longer exist, and instead debtors can find themselves in intractable disputes or subject to inconsistent decisions issued by multiple courts. Over the last two decades, there have been various proposals to address the complications inherent in cross-border insolvency proceedings. In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, which brought a wake of insolvent debtors with massive international presence, the issue has received increased attention. This paper Recently explores several ways in which international arbitration can be used to bring efficiency and consistency to cross-border insolvency proceedings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Bankruptcy Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"4 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Bankruptcy Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004260207_011\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004260207_011","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

破产程序常常受到称赞,因为它提供了一种相对迅速和有效的手段来解决资不抵债的债务人及其债权人之间的争端。历史上,破产法院一直坚持"属地性"原则,即破产程序应在债务人财产或资产所在地的司法管辖区提起,该司法管辖区的法院对这些资产具有管辖权和优先权。根据这一原则,在典型的国内破产程序中,一个法院将对债务人及其所有资产行使管辖权;因此,审裁员可以做出对所有寻求分得这些资产的债权人具有约束力的决定。在我们日益全球化的世界中,领土原则已变得难以适用。今天的跨国公司在多个国家开展业务,在全球范围内持有资产。因此,债务人及其关联实体可能受到不同司法管辖区的多重破产程序的约束。单一法院破产程序的效率提高已不复存在,相反,债务人可能发现自己陷入棘手的纠纷,或受到多个法院作出的不一致裁决的影响。在过去二十年中,针对跨境破产程序中固有的复杂问题提出了各种建议。在最近的金融危机之后,这一问题受到了越来越多的关注。这场危机带来了一批资不抵债的债务国,它们在国际上有大量的存在。本文最近探讨了利用国际仲裁为跨境破产程序带来效率和一致性的几种方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Capturing the Benefits of Arbitration for Cross Border Insolvency Disputes
Insolvency proceedings are often lauded for providing a relatively quick and efficient means of resolving disputes among insolvent debtors and their creditors. Historically, insolvency courts have adhered to the principle of “territoriality,” which posits that bankruptcy proceedings should be brought in the jurisdiction where property or assets of the debtor are located, and that the courts in that forum have jurisdiction and priority over those assets. Based on this principle, in a typical domestic insolvency proceeding, one forum will exercise jurisdiction over the debtor and all of its assets; the adjudicator can thus make decisions that will bind all of the creditors seeking a piece of those assets. The principle of territoriality has become difficult to apply in our increasingly globalized world. Today’s multinational corporations operate in multiple countries and hold assets across the globe. Thus a debtor and its affiliate entities may be subject to multiple insolvency proceedings in various jurisdictions. The efficiency gains of a single-forum insolvency process no longer exist, and instead debtors can find themselves in intractable disputes or subject to inconsistent decisions issued by multiple courts. Over the last two decades, there have been various proposals to address the complications inherent in cross-border insolvency proceedings. In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, which brought a wake of insolvent debtors with massive international presence, the issue has received increased attention. This paper Recently explores several ways in which international arbitration can be used to bring efficiency and consistency to cross-border insolvency proceedings.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Steering Loan Modifications Post-Pandemic Passing the Parcel? Relationship Banking at the Onset of Financial Distress Treatment of Disputed Claims in Corporate Insolvency: Evolving Jurisprudence Paper Series VII - Arrangements and Compromise Government Activism in Bankruptcy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1