도산절차에서의 법인격 부인-미국의 실질적 합병 이론을 중심으로-
Substantive Consolidation - Disregard of Corporate Separateness in Insolvency Proceedings
0
조회
0
다운로드
7
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
'Substantive Consolidation' is a doctrine developed by U.S. courts for bankruptcy cases. Under this doctrine, the bankruptcy court may order the pooling of assets and liabilities of two or more entities, so that the liabilities of the entities involved are satisfied from common pool of assets created by consolidation. The Substantive Consolidation is not specifically authorized by the Bankruptcy Code; rather, it is based on courts' general equitable powers. For many U.S. cases, the courts declared that as the substantive Consolidation is extreme and imprecise remedy, it should be employed only rarely and as matter of last resort after considering and rejecting other remedies. The expectation of commercial markets and market players that the court would respect entity separateness should not be frustrated absent circumstances where equitable remedy is called upon. Substantive Consolidation may affect (i) the tiered corporate structure and (ii) the use of special purpose vehicles in securitization and other structure financing, as well as project financing transactions. Futhermore, Substantive Consolidation may bring international insolvency issue when a group of multinational members is involved in insolvency proceeding. Although it may be possible for Korean courts to exercise the same power as Substantive Consolidation without express legislative authorization, it would be desirable to have a specific provision in the bankruptcy code setting forth the requirements and effects of Substantive Consolidation.
Abstract
'Substantive Consolidation' is a doctrine developed by U.S. courts for bankruptcy cases. Under this doctrine, the bankruptcy court may order the pooling of assets and liabilities of two or more entities, so that the liabilities of the entities involved are satisfied from common pool of assets created by consolidation. The Substantive Consolidation is not specifically authorized by the Bankruptcy Code; rather, it is based on courts' general equitable powers. For many U.S. cases, the courts declared that as the substantive Consolidation is extreme and imprecise remedy, it should be employed only rarely and as matter of last resort after considering and rejecting other remedies. The expectation of commercial markets and market players that the court would respect entity separateness should not be frustrated absent circumstances where equitable remedy is called upon. Substantive Consolidation may affect (i) the tiered corporate structure and (ii) the use of special purpose vehicles in securitization and other structure financing, as well as project financing transactions. Futhermore, Substantive Consolidation may bring international insolvency issue when a group of multinational members is involved in insolvency proceeding. Although it may be possible for Korean courts to exercise the same power as Substantive Consolidation without express legislative authorization, it would be desirable to have a specific provision in the bankruptcy code setting forth the requirements and effects of Substantive Consolidation.
참고문헌 (21)
- 고재종, "법인격부인의 법리에 관한 고찰", 외법논집, 11, pp.234~ (2001)
- 이철송, "회사법강의 제14판", pp.40~ (2007), 박영사
- Henry Hansmann, "The Essential Role of Organizational Law", Yale Law Journal, 110, pp.387~ (2000)
- 서울중앙지방법원 파산부 실무연구회, "회생사건실무(상)", pp.5~6 (2006), 박영사
- Timothy E. Graulich, "Substantive Consolidation - A Post-Modern Trend", American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review, 14, pp.526~553 (2006)
- Mary Elisabeth Kors, "Altered Egos: Deciphering Substantive Consolidation", University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 59, pp.381~391 (1998)
- Jeff Ferriell, "Understanding Bankruptcy, Second Edition", pp.865~ (2007), LexisNexis
- 이미현, "자산유동화에 관한 법률", 제42기 금융거래법 분야 특별연수 1일차, 94~ (2006)
- William H. Widen, "The Reality of Substantive Consolidation - Results from an ABI-Funded Empirical Study", American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, 14 (2007)
- Kenneth G. Lore, "Mortgage-Backed Securities Database", ~ (2007)
- 藤田直介, "米國DIPファイナンスの實務", 銀行法務 21 48卷1號(627號)(2004.01), 48~53 (2004)
- David B. Stratton, "A Measured Response to Critics of Delaware Venue: Part I", American Bankruptcy Institute Journal (2007)
- Kenneth C. Kettering, "Securitization and its Discontents: The Dynamics of Financial Product Development", Cardozo Law Review, pp.1553~1612 (2008)
- "대법원 2006.8.25. 선고 2004다26119", ~ (2006)
- "자산 유동화에 관한 법률 제2조 제2호", ~
- 자산유동화 실무연구회, "금융혁명 ABS-자산유동화의 구조와 실무", pp.33~ (1999), 한국경제신문사
- 양기진, "자산유동화법의 개정방향 - 제13조(자산양도요건)의 재검토 -", 홍익법학, 9(1), pp.137~163 (2008), 법학연구소
- 제강호, "미국법상의 금융자산 증권화의 이론과 실무", 저스티스, 12, pp.97~ (1997)
- Steven L. Schwarcz, "Securitization Post-Enron", Cardozo Law Review, pp.1439~ (2004)
- Christoph G. Paulus, "Group Insolvencies -- Some Thoughts about New Approaches", Texas International Law Journal, 42, pp.819~828 (2007)
- Douglas G. Baird, "Substantive Consolidation Today", Boston College Law Review, 47, pp.5~15 (2005)