并购反垄断审查中的破产抗辩

发布时间：2018-04-16 02:13

本文选题：破产企业抗辩 + 效率　；参考：《中国政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 破产抗辩制度发源于美国1930年代的国家鞋业案,后来在一系列案件中得到进一步阐释和应用。其最核心的要件是并购对象是一家破产企业,并且该项并购不会实质性的减少竞争。但是,美国在运用该制度时要求极为严苛,因此现实中应用的案例不多。但,尽管如此,美国仍在其1992年由司法部和联邦贸易法委员会联合颁布的横向合并指南中明确规定了这一制度。在实践中,还发展出了所谓的“破产分企业抗辩”和“准破产企业抗辩”。既美国创立这一制度后,世界其他很多国家也陆续承认并运用了这一制度,并也将其作为反垄断豁免和抗辩的一种。但是在运用程度和具体认定要件上要求有所不同。总的来说,该制度还是以美国运用和肯定程度较高,欧盟、日本和其他国家虽然也有所承认,但应用很少。本人通过对各国运用破产企业抗辩的大量案例的研究,考察了各国对该制度的具体适用情况,并对之前他人论述的有些观点进行了自己的独特解读和分析。尤其是对美国的最有名和最近的有关破产企业抗辩的案件进行了详细的介绍和分析,以求人们对这一制度的历史发展和现状有更清晰和准确的认识。我国与此相关的法律不多,案例暂时还没有。《反垄断法》在其第28条中规定了公共利益作为一种并购反垄断豁免制度而并没有关于破产企业抗辩的具体规定。但是,纵观破产企业抗辩的合理性分析和存在理由,效率和公共利益是其能抵消或作为维护竞争的最重要理由,当然,各国即使在此“二恶”之间进行平衡时也还会对该项破产并购对竞争没有很大实质性减少方面有所要求。我国在反垄断法颁布之前和颁布之后都有很多国有破产企业并购的案件,并且现在很多该类并购都没有依法进行申报,因此,将来该类并购是否会涉及到使用破产企业抗辩制度还不得而知。最后,在前述基础上本文对我国反垄断法的完善提出了自己的建议。
[Abstract]:The bankruptcy defense system originated from the national shoe case in the 1930's and was further explained and applied in a series of cases.The most important element is that the object of M & A is a bankrupt enterprise, and the M & A will not substantially reduce competition.However, the application of the system in the United States is extremely demanding, so there are few cases in reality.Nevertheless, the United States made this regime explicit in its 1992 horizontal merger Guide, jointly promulgated by the Department of Justice and the Federal Commission on Trade Law.In practice, the so-called "bankruptcy division defense" and "quasi-bankrupt enterprise defense" have been developed.Since the establishment of this system in the United States, many other countries in the world have recognized and used it as a kind of antitrust immunity and defense.However, the degree of application and specific requirements are different.Overall, the system is still used and highly recognized by the United States, although recognized by the European Union, Japan and other countries, it is rarely used.Through the research of a large number of cases about the application of bankruptcy enterprise defense in various countries, I have investigated the concrete application of this system in various countries, and have carried on their own unique interpretation and analysis to some viewpoints discussed by others before.In particular, the most famous and recent cases concerning the defense of bankrupt enterprises in the United States are introduced and analyzed in detail, in order to obtain a clearer and more accurate understanding of the historical development and present situation of this system.There are not many laws related to this in our country. The Anti-monopoly Law stipulates in Article 28 that the public interest is a kind of anti-monopoly exemption system of merger and acquisition, but there is no specific provision on the defense of bankrupt enterprises.However, looking at the reasonableness of the defense of the bankrupt enterprise and the reasons for its existence, efficiency and public interest are the most important reasons for its ability to offset or to maintain competition, of course,Even if there is a balance between this "dioxin", the bankruptcy merger will not have a substantial reduction in competition.Before and after the promulgation of the Anti-monopoly Law, there are many cases of mergers and acquisitions of state-owned bankrupt enterprises in China, and now many of these mergers and acquisitions have not been declared according to law.It is unclear whether such mergers and acquisitions will involve the use of the bankruptcy defense system in the future.Finally, on the basis of the above, this paper puts forward some suggestions for the perfection of our anti-monopoly law.
【学位授予单位】：中国政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2010
【分类号】：D971.2

【同被引文献】