{"title":"破产金融机构处置指南:多德-弗兰克法案第11章和提议的第14章","authors":"Kenneth E. Scott","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2018035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The “Resolution Project” began in August 2009, in the midst of the financial crisis, to consider how best to deal with the failure of major financial institutions. The members of the group, assembled from institutions across the country, were Andrew Crockett, Darrell Duffie, Richard Herring, Thomas Jackson, William Kroener, Kenneth Scott (chair), George Shultz, Kimberly Summe and John Taylor, later joined by David Skeel. The heated debate in Congress over the proper response continued until July 2010, culminating in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203), which in Title II established a new procedure whereby systemically important financial institutions could be put into an FDIC receivership.The Resolution Project group turned to the development of a supplemental proposal for a modified bankruptcy law, denominated as a new Chapter 14, designed exclusively for major financial institutions. This paper is written for a moderately knowledgeable audience and is intended to identify and compare the major differences in the Dodd-Frank Title II and Chapter 14 procedures, and to outline the reasons why the group believes the latter to be preferable.","PeriodicalId":90732,"journal":{"name":"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School","volume":"38 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Guide to the Resolution of Failed Financial Institutions: Dodd-Frank Title Il and Proposed Chapter 14\",\"authors\":\"Kenneth E. Scott\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2018035\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The “Resolution Project” began in August 2009, in the midst of the financial crisis, to consider how best to deal with the failure of major financial institutions. The members of the group, assembled from institutions across the country, were Andrew Crockett, Darrell Duffie, Richard Herring, Thomas Jackson, William Kroener, Kenneth Scott (chair), George Shultz, Kimberly Summe and John Taylor, later joined by David Skeel. The heated debate in Congress over the proper response continued until July 2010, culminating in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203), which in Title II established a new procedure whereby systemically important financial institutions could be put into an FDIC receivership.The Resolution Project group turned to the development of a supplemental proposal for a modified bankruptcy law, denominated as a new Chapter 14, designed exclusively for major financial institutions. This paper is written for a moderately knowledgeable audience and is intended to identify and compare the major differences in the Dodd-Frank Title II and Chapter 14 procedures, and to outline the reasons why the group believes the latter to be preferable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-02-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2018035\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2018035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
摘要
“解决方案项目”始于2009年8月,当时正值金融危机,目的是考虑如何最好地应对主要金融机构的倒闭。该小组的成员来自全国各地的机构,包括安德鲁·克罗克特、达雷尔·杜菲、理查德·赫林、托马斯·杰克逊、威廉·克鲁纳、肯尼斯·斯科特(主席)、乔治·舒尔茨、金伯利·萨姆和约翰·泰勒,后来大卫·斯基尔也加入了进来。国会关于如何应对的激烈辩论一直持续到2010年7月,最终以《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革与消费者保护法案》(Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act)的出台而告终。(L. 111-203),该法案在第二章中建立了一个新的程序,使具有系统重要性的金融机构可以接受FDIC的接管。决议项目小组转而为修改后的破产法制定了一项补充建议,以新的第14章命名,专门为主要金融机构设计。本文是为适度知识渊博的观众写的,旨在识别和比较多德-弗兰克标题II和第14章程序的主要差异,并概述该小组认为后者更可取的原因。
A Guide to the Resolution of Failed Financial Institutions: Dodd-Frank Title Il and Proposed Chapter 14
The “Resolution Project” began in August 2009, in the midst of the financial crisis, to consider how best to deal with the failure of major financial institutions. The members of the group, assembled from institutions across the country, were Andrew Crockett, Darrell Duffie, Richard Herring, Thomas Jackson, William Kroener, Kenneth Scott (chair), George Shultz, Kimberly Summe and John Taylor, later joined by David Skeel. The heated debate in Congress over the proper response continued until July 2010, culminating in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub. L. 111-203), which in Title II established a new procedure whereby systemically important financial institutions could be put into an FDIC receivership.The Resolution Project group turned to the development of a supplemental proposal for a modified bankruptcy law, denominated as a new Chapter 14, designed exclusively for major financial institutions. This paper is written for a moderately knowledgeable audience and is intended to identify and compare the major differences in the Dodd-Frank Title II and Chapter 14 procedures, and to outline the reasons why the group believes the latter to be preferable.