美国资产证券化中资产转移的重新定性法律问题研究

发布时间：2018-06-09 11:06

本文选题：资产证券化 + 重新定性　；参考：《中国政法大学》2010年硕士论文

【摘要】： 资产证券化起源于上世纪70年代的美国,作为最新的融资工具,资产证券化在美国取得了巨大的成功。但是,美国法院在应收账款转让重新定性问题上的混乱的判例法,给整个行业带来很大的不确定性,从业者战战兢兢、无所适从。本文主要对重新定性问题展开研究,希望能对判例法的混乱提出应对,同时把该领域最新的理论和研究介绍到国内。本文由引言、正文和结语三部分组成。引言部分介绍了本文的研究背景、意义和目的。正文部分共分三章,主要运用案例分析法、历史分析法和文本分析法展开研究。正文部分的主要内容是: 第一章是资产转移所涉概念。在这一章里,笔者主要对两个重要概念进行了简要分析,限定本文的研究范畴。首先是资产证券化的概念,由于资产证券化的实践架构复杂多变,学术上给出精确的定义是不可能的。但是,资产证券化具备两个必备特征:一是要有可支撑的资产;二是顺利完成转让。接着,笔者介绍了另一概念——应收账款,在资产证券化中,能用来证券化的资产必须具备一定的特征,最重要的是证券化的资产必须保证能在未来产生稳定的现金流,而应收账款就属于这样的资产。正因为应收账款的缘故,下文介绍的很多案例才能和资产证券化相联系。第二章是关于法院的判例法的分析。通过对美国积聚的有关应收账款转让的交易性质重新认定的案件的考查,总结出法院判决时经常考虑的一些因素:对转让人的追索权(recourse)、转让人保留为应收账款服务的权利和收入的混同、受让人调查债账债务人信用情况的失败、转让人保有超额清偿价款的权利、回购选择权(an option to repurchase)的保留、合同的用语和双方的行为、单方调整或提请重新协商有关资产转让的其他条款的权利、单方调整价格条款的权利,一共八个,但实际应该还有更多的因素,并且介绍了这些因素之间的相互作用。通过分析,我们发现美国关于该问题的判例法极其混乱,并已经对实践操作产生了不好的影响。第三章是有关追索权的探讨。学者们希望解决判例法的混乱问题,但是大家都无法绕开追索权的问题,追索权几乎使得学者的努力全部白费。但是,追索权未必是重新定性的决定因素,或者说追索权可能与重新定性无关。下面,本文即从历史的角度考察了重新定性的目的,得出追索权并不是必然与重新定性问题有关,从而在一定程度上解决了追索权的困扰问题。而且,这样的分析也得到了美国立法层面的支持。但是,司法领域对于学界与立法尚未回应,追索权问题究竟去向何方,现在还不好说。结语部分则对本文进行了简单总结。
[Abstract]:Asset securitization originated in the United States in the 1970s. As the latest financing tool, asset securitization has achieved great success in the United States. However, the confused case law of American courts on the recharacterization of accounts receivable has brought great uncertainty to the whole industry, and the practitioners are trembling and at a loss as to what to do. This paper mainly studies the problem of recharacterization, hoping to deal with the confusion of case law, and at the same time introducing the latest theories and studies in this field to our country. This paper is composed of three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The introduction introduces the background, significance and purpose of this paper. The text is divided into three chapters, mainly using case analysis, historical analysis and text analysis. The main content of the text is: the first chapter is the concept of asset transfer. In this chapter, the author makes a brief analysis of two important concepts, limiting the scope of this study. The first is the concept of asset securitization, because the practical framework of asset securitization is complex and changeable, it is impossible to give a precise definition in academic. However, asset securitization has two essential features: one is to have supporting assets, the other is to complete the transfer smoothly. Then, the author introduces another concept-accounts receivable. In asset securitization, the assets that can be used for securitization must have certain characteristics, and the most important thing is that the assets of securitization must be able to produce stable cash flow in the future. Accounts receivable belong to such assets. Because of accounts receivable, many of the cases described below are linked to asset securitisation. Chapter two is an analysis of the court's case law. Through the examination of cases in which the nature of transactions relating to the transfer of accounts receivable accumulated in the United States has been re-established, Summing up some of the factors that are often taken into account in court decisions: recourse against the assignor, the confusion between the assignor's right to service accounts receivable and income, and the failure of the assignee to investigate the creditworthiness of the debtor, The assignor retains the right to overpay the price, the right to reserve the repurchase option an option to repurchase), the terms of the contract and the conduct of both parties, the right to unilaterally adjust or request renegotiation of other terms relating to the transfer of assets, There are eight rights to unilaterally adjust price terms, but there should be more, and the interaction between these factors is described. Through analysis, we find that the case law of the United States on this issue is extremely confused, and has had a bad impact on the practice. Chapter three is about the discussion of the right of recourse. Scholars hope to solve the confusion of case law, but we can not bypass the issue of recourse, recourse almost all the efforts of scholars in vain. However, recourse may not be the determinant of recharacterization, or it may have nothing to do with recharacterization. Next, this paper examines the purpose of recharacterization from the historical point of view, and concludes that recourse is not necessarily related to recharacterization, thus to a certain extent solve the puzzling problem of recourse. Moreover, this kind of analysis also obtained the American legislative level support. However, the judicial field has not yet responded to the academic and legislative issues, where the right of recourse to go, it is difficult to say. Conclusion part is a simple summary of this article.
【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;DD912.28

【引证文献】