海之美文新闻资讯
大规模人身侵权债权的破产法救济制度研究
《企业破产法》被广泛认为是我国一部重要的市场经济法，既能完善企业法律制度，规範企业的市场退出机制，也能适当满足我国加入WTO后的国际经济交往需要，建立起一个有信用、有效率、有保障、有预期的法律机制和市场环境，打消外资，尤其是金融资本进入中国的顾虑。对于破产法上的期待，毫无例外地都体现在现实的经济需要之上。从《企业破产法》制定的历史背景考察，大规模人身侵权受害人的救济问题从来就没有进入过立法者的视野。
基本介绍
- 中文名：大规模人身侵权债权的破产法救济制度研究
- 时间：1994年
- 类别：相关辞彙
- 相关：《企业破产法》
中文摘要
我国《企业破产法》起草于1994年，2004年6月首次提交审议，2006年8月27日由第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十三次会议通过，自2007年6月1日起施行。《企业破产法》被广泛认为是我国一部重要的市场经济法，既能完善企业法律制度，规範企业的市场退出机制，也能适当满足我国加入WTO后的国际经济交往需要，建立起一个有信用、有效率、有保障、有预期的法律机制和市场环境，打消外资，尤其是金融资本进入中国的顾虑。对于破产法上的期待，毫无例外地都体现在现实的经济需要之上。从《企业破产法》制定的历史背景考察，大规模人身侵权受害人的救济问题从来就没有进入...>> 详细
我国《企业破产法》起草于1994年，2004年6月首次提交审议，2006年8月27日由第十届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第二十三次会议通过，自2007年6月1日起施行。《企业破产法》被广泛认为是我国一部重要的市场经济法，既能完善企业法律制度，规範企业的市场退出机制，也能适当满足我国加入WTO后的国际经济交往需要，建立起一个有信用、有效率、有保障、有预期的法律机制和市场环境，打消外资，尤其是金融资本进入中国的顾虑。对于破产法上的期待，毫无例外地都体现在现实的经济需要之上。从《企业破产法》制定的历史背景考察，大规模人身侵权受害人的救济问题从来就没有进入过立法者的视野。
在《企业破产法》实施两年后的2008年，我国震惊世界的含三聚氰胺奶粉大规模人身侵权事件被暴露于世。据当时的统计，受害者儿童总数达三十余万人。由于各地法院拒绝受理含三聚氰胺奶粉受害者提起的人身侵权诉讼，在全国并未出现大规模的人身侵权诉讼现象。然而，大规模人身侵权在中国乃至全世界，已是不可否认的事实。全国範围的受害儿童救济方案，最终通过政府和侵权企业共济的方式得以确定，从而迴避了连锁性大规模人身侵权破产案件的发生。官企共济救济方式及其实施的结果是，全民为企业侵权责任承担主要侵权成本，除极个别的侵权企业破产外，其他的侵权企业都躲避了大规模人身侵权破产的厄运。构想，如果我国当时没有採取官企共济的救助方式，数十家乳製品侵权企业因大规模人身侵权赔偿责任而进入破产程式，我国的《企业破产法》是否能够应对这样的大规模人身侵权破产案件，对数十万因食用含三聚氰胺奶粉而遭受人身伤害的儿童的提供充分有效的最优先救济?类似于三聚氰胺奶粉大规模人身侵权案件的现象还有很多，例如，在我国，因江河污染以及特种行业污染所造成的癌症村就有200多个；与石绵生产和石绵製品销售有关的从业人员就有千万之众，石绵製品的使用者和接触者就更不计其数了。也有一些受害人为人身侵权提起诉讼，但是绝大多数诉讼案件因受害人存在特定因果关係的举证困难而败诉。我国的大规模人身侵权现象已经十分普遍，只是未受到现有法律制度的认可而已，在客观效果上，现有法律制度在一定程度上已经成为大规模人身侵权企业的制度保护伞。
大规模侵权，既包括财产侵权也包括人身侵权，在实践中最常发生并最困扰法院的是大规模人身侵权案件。本文所研究的是大规模人身侵权债权的破产法救济救济制度。大规模人身侵权的特点是，就原告而言，不仅受害者人数众多，而且还存在众多的潜在受害人，诉讼分散，规模庞大；在被告方面，也存在複数被告的情况，甚至还存在潜在的被告，而且被告还可能面临未来不确定的人身损害赔偿诉讼。面临大规模人身侵权赔偿责任，侵权企业有时会选择申请破产清算或破产重整程式，以解决现实的或未来的人身侵权赔偿责任。因此，当大规模人身侵权责任导致侵权企业申请破产时，包括潜在受害人在内的所有人身侵权受害人的债权救济，是大规模人身侵权破产案件破产程式中最重要的问题。考察我国现行的《企业破产法》，就结论而言，如图1所示，它既不救济人身侵权潜在受害人，也不优先救济人身侵权受害人。
[图1：传统破产法之下的人身侵权救济]
〓
在文明社会，无论财产的价值有多大，事故救济的首要原则、方针和具体措施，都毫无例外地表现为：救助生命高于一切!例如，我国的歼10战斗机价值过亿元，如果在飞行中一旦出现严重机械故障，除自愿行为外，飞行员的逃生是指挥机关最优先的选择。然而，图一则为我们展示了完全相反的法律制度与残酷现实：金钱债权高于生命债权。
在大规模人身侵权破产案件中，如果传统破产法适用于破产程式，金融机关的金融债权，1劳动者的劳动债权和国家的税收债权等债权，2就优先于人身侵权债权，即健康和生命债权而受偿，破产法如此创造了金钱高于生命的法律救济制度。出现如此严重的制度问题，其根本原因何在?单单从表象上分析，这是由于破产法的债权分配製度取代了侵权法的完全损害赔偿制度所造成的结果。从法律的逻辑上分析，破产法的债权分配製度和侵权法的完全损害赔偿制度二者之中必然有一种制度是错误的，是必须捨弃的，否则就无法解释和解决破产程式中这种财“物重于生命、金钱债权优先于生命债权”的法律现象。然而，如果前提错误，逻辑推论的结果就是不可信赖的。经验和历史证明，侵权法制度和破产法制度在近代和现代的社会及经济发展中起到了重大的秩序维护和进步推动作用，二者都是不可偏废的。
那幺，问题到底产生于何种原因?是否产生于将传统破产法适用于现代工业社会所特有的大规模人身侵权破产案件这一前提条件?从结论而言，如果将传统破产法适用于大规模人身侵权破产案件，就必然造成破产企业的资本债务与人身侵权债务的混同，这种“混同”正是造成“金钱债权优先于生命债权”的根本原因，而这种“混同”本身则源自于传统破产法和侵权法的功能结构：对于侵权损害，除“恢复原状”的救济方法之外，所能依靠的就只能是将债务人的侵权责任转化为金钱债务责任，即转化为损害赔偿责任，而人身损害侵权是很难依赖于原状回复的。与侵权法相比，在破产法上，人身侵权责任的金钱转化是唯一的救济方法，债务人的任何人身侵权责任必须转化为受害人的破产债权。
由于历史的局限，破产法是以商人的债权回收为基本目的的债权回收法。破产法以契约自由原则为根据，规定了不同商业债权的回收序位；以债权回收序位为标準，将破产债权分类为担保债权和无担保债权两类。于是，破产债权的分类和破产债权回收序位秩序就构成了传统破产法的核心内容。由此，我们发现，如果将大规模人身侵权损害赔偿责任转化为金钱债权，并将其归入普通的无担保债权之中，其结果必然是导致“金钱债权优先于生命债权”的法律现象。简而言之，传统破产法不能机械地适用于大规模人身侵杖破产案件，否则即造成“物贵人贱”的反道德、反法律和反社会现象。
但是，破产法是为解决企业破产问题而制定的，而且也具有能够公平、效率地解决大规模人身侵权受害人救济的结构性优势。例如，传统破产法具有全国性的统一管辖权制度，既能防止地区之间为争夺破产财产目的的诉讼竞争，也能防止原告先胜先得、后胜不得的不公平现象，而且还能矫正债务人的破产财产转移行为：3破产法所规定的“债务人破产重整程式”，能够最大限度保持破产财产的价值，既有利于实现对人身侵权受害人的救济，也有利于减轻由于企业破产和大规模人身侵权而对社会整体福利造成的损害。
本文的观点是：大规模人身侵权破产案件的发生是一种不可避免的社会现象，我国也不可能件件採用“官企共济”的方式，主要依靠全民成本解决大规模人身侵权受害人的救济问题，而应逐渐通过适用《企业破产法》处理大规模人身侵权破产案件，救济大规模人身侵权受害人。经济法的宗旨在于调控和规制政府和企业行为，促进经济与社会的良性运行和协调发展。为此，在大规模人身侵权破产案件中，《企业破产法》应当成为人身侵权受害人获得法律救济的最后保障，既要救济潜在的受害人，还要从整体上最优先救济人身侵权受害人，赋予人身侵权债权人超级优先权，优先于其他一切破产债权人，从而避免产生“物贵人贱”的反道德、反法律和反社会现象。为此，我们应当对《企业破产法》进行图2所示的改造，使传统破产法升级为现代破产法，既能满足商业债权的救济需要，也能满足生命债权的救济需要，实现现代工业社会环境下的破产法转型。
[图2：现代破产法之下的人身侵权债权救济]
〓
图2所示的破产法是现代破产法，它符合经济法的最基本原则——公平和效率原则，不仅反映社会的基本需要，而且，在现代法学和经济学的基本原理上具有足够的理论支撑；正义和公平是法律的基本精神；收益和成本是经济的根本所在。具体而言，图2所示的现代破产法符合侵权法的完全损害赔偿原则和经济活动的成本支付原则，而且在社会制度的完善上符合帕累托最优原则。
以上两个图示反映了本文的核心内容与写作思路，据此，本文由四章构成，从问题的产生，到问题的分析与论证，再到问题解决方案的提出，採取层次递进的写作方法，沿着主线自然而成。
第一章主要是对大规模人身侵权的特点进行分析，指出，在解决大规模人身侵权债权救济问题上，传统破产法既具有固有的结构性优势，也存在固有的制度障碍：债务性质无区分的强制债权转换和分类。我国的《企业破产法》属于传统破产法：它将企业的人身侵权责任转化为金钱债权，并将其归入普通的无担保债权之中，而且不但排除了对人身侵权债权人的最优先救济，还排除了对人身侵权潜在受害人的救济。
第二章从大规模人身侵权受害人的人权保障、侵权企业的破产重整需要以及破产法的宗旨三个方面，结合美国的司法和立法实践，指出了人身侵权潜在受害人作为破产债权人而获得充分有效救济的必要性，救济人身侵权潜在受害人，既能满足大规模人身侵权潜在受害人的救济需要，也能为企业破产重整获得成功提供重要保障，从而平等地保护债权人与债务人的权利，有助于减少对社会整体福利的损害。
第三章是本文的核心。本文力图避免通过法律範畴的抽象讨论而单纯主张人身侵权债权的超级优先权，而是从法学和经济学的视角，从法人人格理论，从企业的资本结构，对企业的性质进行分析，达到这一结论。关于企业性质，传统民法和公司法基本上是从将企业作为一个责任承担的主体，即民事责任主体的视角，探讨企业的法人性质或合伙性质。企业的性质，无论是法学，还是在经济学，不同的研究视角必然产生不同的结论。例如，科斯从研究企业一体化(垄断)的视角研究企业，从而发现了交易成本的存在，得出了企业是一种价格机制的结论。自从科斯的《企业的性质》诞生之后，经济学界侧重从交易成本的角度探讨企业的性质，企业是一种价格机制的观点逐渐成为一种共识。关于从资本的视角分析企业的性质，在现代西方经济学中，主要是从企业财务的角度而进行的，目的在于研究企业收益与成本问题。
本文从研究资本责任的目的出发，从企业资本构成的视角探讨企业的性质。企业的结构可以分为资本结构与生产结构，两种结构既有区别又有联繫。资本结构是指企业的权益资本与债务资本的构成，而生产结构则是指企业的边界。本章着重从经济学的视角，对企业的资本结构进行考察，得出企业是一种资本组合、是各类投资者的利益共同体的企业性质认识。本章通过资本组合的企业性质的分析，区分了破产法上的破产债权与侵权企业的人身侵权赔偿责任的性质。本文认为，企业是各种资本的组合，当企业破产时，各种资本所形成的债权源自法律、尤其是破产法的规定，在法律意义上属于债权人对破产企业所拥有的商业债权，木质上属于各种资本供应者在共同获利的过程中而进行的、并为传统破产法所认可的资本回收交易安排。无论是担保债权人、无担保债权人，还是债务人，破产债权分配製度是各种资本供应者之间所形成或达成的资本交易安排。这种资本交易安排基于非破产法律而存在，为传统破产法所确认。而人身侵权债权则是侵权企业的赔偿责任为传统破产法所强制转换的结果，本来并不属于破产债权的範畴，并且缺乏法学和经济学的理论支撑。在经济学上，商业债权属于侵权企业(各类资本供应者)的资本範畴，是资本在盈利过程中的风险体现；而人身侵权债权则属于资本在盈利过程中所生产的外部性，必须由资本本身来承担，属于侵权企业的生产成本範畴；在法学上，商业债权属于债权人的契约权利範畴，人身侵权债权属于侵权企业的法定义务範畴。传统破产法属于商人法，它所关注的是破产财产价值的最大化和破产财产的分配。如果将传统破产法的破产债权分类和破产财产分配机制机械地适用于大规模人身侵权案件，必然导致上述不同基本範畴的混同，在理论上，既违反法学原理，同时也违反经济学原理；在实际效果上，势必导致侵权受害者为侵权人承担侵权成本的逆反效果。
在如上分析的前提下，本文认为，在大规模人身侵权破产案件中，《企业破产法》应当承接侵权法的功能，遵循侵权法的完全赔偿原则，建立大规模人身侵权债权超级优先权制度，使大规模人身侵权债权优先于任何其他债权而受偿；而且，当破产财产不足以偿付大规模人身侵权债权时，侵权企业的主要资本供应者，如控股股东、控制债权人以及高级管理人员，应对大规模人身侵权受害人承担连带赔偿责任。在本章的最后部分，作为理论上的统括，本章从经济法的宗旨和经济法外部性正反两个方面对对规模人身侵权债权的破产法救济制度进行了经济法分析，并藉此对经济法及经济法学的建设提出了一些建设性的学术观点，例如经济法也存在外部性问题，市场规製法的纵横构造问题等等。
第四章是本文的终章，作为制度篇，提出在《企业破产法》中加入“大规模人身侵权破产案件的特别规定”一章，并通过所选择的十个典型问题的讨论和相应的建议方案，构筑《企业破产法》上大规模人身侵权债权救济的基本制度框架，使《企业破产法》既能够保持基本内容与结构的稳定性，也能够应对大规模人身侵权破产案件，充分并有效地救济大规模人身侵权受害人，使《企业破产法》从传统破产法升级为现代破产法，既能够解决商业债权的分配问题，也能够有效解决大规模人身侵权债权的救济问题。除制度建设的提案之外，本章亦根据论文的结构安排和必要性原则，在相关理论方面做了必要的探讨和展开，例如，先侵权后破产原则，市场份额责任原则等等，儘量弥补本体论中存在的相应不足，保证论文在整体结构和内容上的基本畅通与和谐统一。
关键字：大规模人身侵权 人身侵权将来债权 资本组合 破产债权分类 超级优先权制度
1参见《企业破产法》第109条。
2参见《企业破产法》第113条第1款、第2款；11 U.S.C.§506，§507.
3参见《企业破产法》第四章关于撤销权和取回权等规定。
在《企业破产法》实施两年后的2008年，我国震惊世界的含三聚氰胺奶粉大规模人身侵权事件被暴露于世。据当时的统计，受害者儿童总数达三十余万人。由于各地法院拒绝受理含三聚氰胺奶粉受害者提起的人身侵权诉讼，在全国并未出现大规模的人身侵权诉讼现象。然而，大规模人身侵权在中国乃至全世界，已是不可否认的事实。全国範围的受害儿童救济方案，最终通过政府和侵权企业共济的方式得以确定，从而迴避了连锁性大规模人身侵权破产案件的发生。官企共济救济方式及其实施的结果是，全民为企业侵权责任承担主要侵权成本，除极个别的侵权企业破产外，其他的侵权企业都躲避了大规模人身侵权破产的厄运。构想，如果我国当时没有採取官企共济的救助方式，数十家乳製品侵权企业因大规模人身侵权赔偿责任而进入破产程式，我国的《企业破产法》是否能够应对这样的大规模人身侵权破产案件，对数十万因食用含三聚氰胺奶粉而遭受人身伤害的儿童的提供充分有效的最优先救济?类似于三聚氰胺奶粉大规模人身侵权案件的现象还有很多，例如，在我国，因江河污染以及特种行业污染所造成的癌症村就有200多个；与石绵生产和石绵製品销售有关的从业人员就有千万之众，石绵製品的使用者和接触者就更不计其数了。也有一些受害人为人身侵权提起诉讼，但是绝大多数诉讼案件因受害人存在特定因果关係的举证困难而败诉。我国的大规模人身侵权现象已经十分普遍，只是未受到现有法律制度的认可而已，在客观效果上，现有法律制度在一定程度上已经成为大规模人身侵权企业的制度保护伞。
大规模侵权，既包括财产侵权也包括人身侵权，在实践中最常发生并最困扰法院的是大规模人身侵权案件。本文所研究的是大规模人身侵权债权的破产法救济救济制度。大规模人身侵权的特点是，就原告而言，不仅受害者人数众多，而且还存在众多的潜在受害人，诉讼分散，规模庞大；在被告方面，也存在複数被告的情况，甚至还存在潜在的被告，而且被告还可能面临未来不确定的人身损害赔偿诉讼。面临大规模人身侵权赔偿责任，侵权企业有时会选择申请破产清算或破产重整程式，以解决现实的或未来的人身侵权赔偿责任。因此，当大规模人身侵权责任导致侵权企业申请破产时，包括潜在受害人在内的所有人身侵权受害人的债权救济，是大规模人身侵权破产案件破产程式中最重要的问题。考察我国现行的《企业破产法》，就结论而言，如图1所示，它既不救济人身侵权潜在受害人，也不优先救济人身侵权受害人。
[图1：传统破产法之下的人身侵权救济]
〓
在文明社会，无论财产的价值有多大，事故救济的首要原则、方针和具体措施，都毫无例外地表现为：救助生命高于一切!例如，我国的歼10战斗机价值过亿元，如果在飞行中一旦出现严重机械故障，除自愿行为外，飞行员的逃生是指挥机关最优先的选择。然而，图一则为我们展示了完全相反的法律制度与残酷现实：金钱债权高于生命债权。
在大规模人身侵权破产案件中，如果传统破产法适用于破产程式，金融机关的金融债权，1劳动者的劳动债权和国家的税收债权等债权，2就优先于人身侵权债权，即健康和生命债权而受偿，破产法如此创造了金钱高于生命的法律救济制度。出现如此严重的制度问题，其根本原因何在?单单从表象上分析，这是由于破产法的债权分配製度取代了侵权法的完全损害赔偿制度所造成的结果。从法律的逻辑上分析，破产法的债权分配製度和侵权法的完全损害赔偿制度二者之中必然有一种制度是错误的，是必须捨弃的，否则就无法解释和解决破产程式中这种财“物重于生命、金钱债权优先于生命债权”的法律现象。然而，如果前提错误，逻辑推论的结果就是不可信赖的。经验和历史证明，侵权法制度和破产法制度在近代和现代的社会及经济发展中起到了重大的秩序维护和进步推动作用，二者都是不可偏废的。
那幺，问题到底产生于何种原因?是否产生于将传统破产法适用于现代工业社会所特有的大规模人身侵权破产案件这一前提条件?从结论而言，如果将传统破产法适用于大规模人身侵权破产案件，就必然造成破产企业的资本债务与人身侵权债务的混同，这种“混同”正是造成“金钱债权优先于生命债权”的根本原因，而这种“混同”本身则源自于传统破产法和侵权法的功能结构：对于侵权损害，除“恢复原状”的救济方法之外，所能依靠的就只能是将债务人的侵权责任转化为金钱债务责任，即转化为损害赔偿责任，而人身损害侵权是很难依赖于原状回复的。与侵权法相比，在破产法上，人身侵权责任的金钱转化是唯一的救济方法，债务人的任何人身侵权责任必须转化为受害人的破产债权。
由于历史的局限，破产法是以商人的债权回收为基本目的的债权回收法。破产法以契约自由原则为根据，规定了不同商业债权的回收序位；以债权回收序位为标準，将破产债权分类为担保债权和无担保债权两类。于是，破产债权的分类和破产债权回收序位秩序就构成了传统破产法的核心内容。由此，我们发现，如果将大规模人身侵权损害赔偿责任转化为金钱债权，并将其归入普通的无担保债权之中，其结果必然是导致“金钱债权优先于生命债权”的法律现象。简而言之，传统破产法不能机械地适用于大规模人身侵杖破产案件，否则即造成“物贵人贱”的反道德、反法律和反社会现象。
但是，破产法是为解决企业破产问题而制定的，而且也具有能够公平、效率地解决大规模人身侵权受害人救济的结构性优势。例如，传统破产法具有全国性的统一管辖权制度，既能防止地区之间为争夺破产财产目的的诉讼竞争，也能防止原告先胜先得、后胜不得的不公平现象，而且还能矫正债务人的破产财产转移行为：3破产法所规定的“债务人破产重整程式”，能够最大限度保持破产财产的价值，既有利于实现对人身侵权受害人的救济，也有利于减轻由于企业破产和大规模人身侵权而对社会整体福利造成的损害。
本文的观点是：大规模人身侵权破产案件的发生是一种不可避免的社会现象，我国也不可能件件採用“官企共济”的方式，主要依靠全民成本解决大规模人身侵权受害人的救济问题，而应逐渐通过适用《企业破产法》处理大规模人身侵权破产案件，救济大规模人身侵权受害人。经济法的宗旨在于调控和规制政府和企业行为，促进经济与社会的良性运行和协调发展。为此，在大规模人身侵权破产案件中，《企业破产法》应当成为人身侵权受害人获得法律救济的最后保障，既要救济潜在的受害人，还要从整体上最优先救济人身侵权受害人，赋予人身侵权债权人超级优先权，优先于其他一切破产债权人，从而避免产生“物贵人贱”的反道德、反法律和反社会现象。为此，我们应当对《企业破产法》进行图2所示的改造，使传统破产法升级为现代破产法，既能满足商业债权的救济需要，也能满足生命债权的救济需要，实现现代工业社会环境下的破产法转型。
[图2：现代破产法之下的人身侵权债权救济]
〓
图2所示的破产法是现代破产法，它符合经济法的最基本原则——公平和效率原则，不仅反映社会的基本需要，而且，在现代法学和经济学的基本原理上具有足够的理论支撑；正义和公平是法律的基本精神；收益和成本是经济的根本所在。具体而言，图2所示的现代破产法符合侵权法的完全损害赔偿原则和经济活动的成本支付原则，而且在社会制度的完善上符合帕累托最优原则。
以上两个图示反映了本文的核心内容与写作思路，据此，本文由四章构成，从问题的产生，到问题的分析与论证，再到问题解决方案的提出，採取层次递进的写作方法，沿着主线自然而成。
第一章主要是对大规模人身侵权的特点进行分析，指出，在解决大规模人身侵权债权救济问题上，传统破产法既具有固有的结构性优势，也存在固有的制度障碍：债务性质无区分的强制债权转换和分类。我国的《企业破产法》属于传统破产法：它将企业的人身侵权责任转化为金钱债权，并将其归入普通的无担保债权之中，而且不但排除了对人身侵权债权人的最优先救济，还排除了对人身侵权潜在受害人的救济。
第二章从大规模人身侵权受害人的人权保障、侵权企业的破产重整需要以及破产法的宗旨三个方面，结合美国的司法和立法实践，指出了人身侵权潜在受害人作为破产债权人而获得充分有效救济的必要性，救济人身侵权潜在受害人，既能满足大规模人身侵权潜在受害人的救济需要，也能为企业破产重整获得成功提供重要保障，从而平等地保护债权人与债务人的权利，有助于减少对社会整体福利的损害。
第三章是本文的核心。本文力图避免通过法律範畴的抽象讨论而单纯主张人身侵权债权的超级优先权，而是从法学和经济学的视角，从法人人格理论，从企业的资本结构，对企业的性质进行分析，达到这一结论。关于企业性质，传统民法和公司法基本上是从将企业作为一个责任承担的主体，即民事责任主体的视角，探讨企业的法人性质或合伙性质。企业的性质，无论是法学，还是在经济学，不同的研究视角必然产生不同的结论。例如，科斯从研究企业一体化(垄断)的视角研究企业，从而发现了交易成本的存在，得出了企业是一种价格机制的结论。自从科斯的《企业的性质》诞生之后，经济学界侧重从交易成本的角度探讨企业的性质，企业是一种价格机制的观点逐渐成为一种共识。关于从资本的视角分析企业的性质，在现代西方经济学中，主要是从企业财务的角度而进行的，目的在于研究企业收益与成本问题。
本文从研究资本责任的目的出发，从企业资本构成的视角探讨企业的性质。企业的结构可以分为资本结构与生产结构，两种结构既有区别又有联繫。资本结构是指企业的权益资本与债务资本的构成，而生产结构则是指企业的边界。本章着重从经济学的视角，对企业的资本结构进行考察，得出企业是一种资本组合、是各类投资者的利益共同体的企业性质认识。本章通过资本组合的企业性质的分析，区分了破产法上的破产债权与侵权企业的人身侵权赔偿责任的性质。本文认为，企业是各种资本的组合，当企业破产时，各种资本所形成的债权源自法律、尤其是破产法的规定，在法律意义上属于债权人对破产企业所拥有的商业债权，木质上属于各种资本供应者在共同获利的过程中而进行的、并为传统破产法所认可的资本回收交易安排。无论是担保债权人、无担保债权人，还是债务人，破产债权分配製度是各种资本供应者之间所形成或达成的资本交易安排。这种资本交易安排基于非破产法律而存在，为传统破产法所确认。而人身侵权债权则是侵权企业的赔偿责任为传统破产法所强制转换的结果，本来并不属于破产债权的範畴，并且缺乏法学和经济学的理论支撑。在经济学上，商业债权属于侵权企业(各类资本供应者)的资本範畴，是资本在盈利过程中的风险体现；而人身侵权债权则属于资本在盈利过程中所生产的外部性，必须由资本本身来承担，属于侵权企业的生产成本範畴；在法学上，商业债权属于债权人的契约权利範畴，人身侵权债权属于侵权企业的法定义务範畴。传统破产法属于商人法，它所关注的是破产财产价值的最大化和破产财产的分配。如果将传统破产法的破产债权分类和破产财产分配机制机械地适用于大规模人身侵权案件，必然导致上述不同基本範畴的混同，在理论上，既违反法学原理，同时也违反经济学原理；在实际效果上，势必导致侵权受害者为侵权人承担侵权成本的逆反效果。
在如上分析的前提下，本文认为，在大规模人身侵权破产案件中，《企业破产法》应当承接侵权法的功能，遵循侵权法的完全赔偿原则，建立大规模人身侵权债权超级优先权制度，使大规模人身侵权债权优先于任何其他债权而受偿；而且，当破产财产不足以偿付大规模人身侵权债权时，侵权企业的主要资本供应者，如控股股东、控制债权人以及高级管理人员，应对大规模人身侵权受害人承担连带赔偿责任。在本章的最后部分，作为理论上的统括，本章从经济法的宗旨和经济法外部性正反两个方面对对规模人身侵权债权的破产法救济制度进行了经济法分析，并藉此对经济法及经济法学的建设提出了一些建设性的学术观点，例如经济法也存在外部性问题，市场规製法的纵横构造问题等等。
第四章是本文的终章，作为制度篇，提出在《企业破产法》中加入“大规模人身侵权破产案件的特别规定”一章，并通过所选择的十个典型问题的讨论和相应的建议方案，构筑《企业破产法》上大规模人身侵权债权救济的基本制度框架，使《企业破产法》既能够保持基本内容与结构的稳定性，也能够应对大规模人身侵权破产案件，充分并有效地救济大规模人身侵权受害人，使《企业破产法》从传统破产法升级为现代破产法，既能够解决商业债权的分配问题，也能够有效解决大规模人身侵权债权的救济问题。除制度建设的提案之外，本章亦根据论文的结构安排和必要性原则，在相关理论方面做了必要的探讨和展开，例如，先侵权后破产原则，市场份额责任原则等等，儘量弥补本体论中存在的相应不足，保证论文在整体结构和内容上的基本畅通与和谐统一。
关键字：大规模人身侵权 人身侵权将来债权 资本组合 破产债权分类 超级优先权制度
1参见《企业破产法》第109条。
2参见《企业破产法》第113条第1款、第2款；11 U.S.C.§506，§507.
3参见《企业破产法》第四章关于撤销权和取回权等规定。
外文摘要
Law of the People''s Republic of China on Enterprise Bankruptcy was drafted in 1994. was submitted to the Standing Committee of National People''s Congress for the first consideration in June 2004, and adopted at the twenty-third Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People''s Congress on August 27, 2006, tool effect as of June 1, 2007. Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was widely regarded as an important market economic law of China, should note only play a key role in improving cor...>> 详细
Law of the People''s Republic of China on Enterprise Bankruptcy was drafted in 1994. was submitted to the Standing Committee of National People''s Congress for the first consideration in June 2004, and adopted at the twenty-third Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People''s Congress on August 27, 2006, tool effect as of June 1, 2007. Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was widely regarded as an important market economic law of China, should note only play a key role in improving corporate legal system, regulating Withdrawal Mechanism of enterprises Insurance in China, but also appropriating to the meet of China the international economic exchanges after her accession to the WTO, promoting the establishment of legal mechanism and a market environment with full credit, efficiency, security, discouraging foreign investment, especially the foreign financial capital which have big concerns to China. Expectations without exception concentrated in bankruptcy law were concentrated on the real economic needs and expectations. Inspecting from the historical background of the enactment of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of, Mass personal tort victim relief has never entered into the vision of legislators.
Two years later after the implement of Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, China shocked the world with the scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder by which about more than three hundred thousand children large-scale were exposed, according to the statistics at that time. All of the courts rejected the lawsuit filed by victims concerning the scandal, as a result of the courts'' rejection, no mass personal tort litigation happened in China. However, the existences of mass personal injury torts were undeniable fact in both China and the world. Child victims relief programs nationwide, ultimately was determined by the central Government in Masonic way by government and tort enterprises, thus avoiding a chain of large-scale bankruptcy cases of mass torts. The result of Masonic relief, the whole people to bear the main costs for the corporate tort liability, most of the tort enterprises avoided the misfortune of bankruptcy by mass torts. It was envisaged that if China did not take the official Masonic relief, a large number of tort enterprises might be fallen into bankruptcy proceedings due to the personal tort liability and, we want to know whether the China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was able to respond to such mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, granted super-priority to the exposed children in bankruptcy proceeding? Similar to those scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder cases, so many mass torts happened in china, for example, there are more than 200 cancer villages in China caused by rivers pollution, and special industry pollution; There are more than ten millions staffs in the field of the production and trade of asbestos, The users of asbestos production in China should be more numerous. Many of the victims sued for losing but failed due to difficulties of proof in a particular causal relationship. Mass personal torts are very common, but are still not admitted by the existing legal system, which has become a strong umbrella of mass torts enterprises. Mass torts, including both property damage and personal injury, occur most frequently in economic activity of enterprises and courts are most troubled by those mass tort cases. This thesis is the study on personal injury victims'' relief mechanism in mass tort bankruptcy. Mass personal injury tort is characterized by not only the vast numbers of victims, a large number of potential victims, dispersed litigation, large-scale compensation, but also an uncertainty of future actions faced by tortfeasors. Tortfeasors may choose to file for bankruptcy liquidation or reorganization procedures to address personal tort liability. Therefore, when mass tort personal injury liability lead to the tortfeasors filed for bankruptcy, the relief for personal tort victims, potential victims, will become the most important issue in the mass personal injury bankruptcy proceedings. Visits China''s current Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, unparalleled in terms of knot, shown in Figure 1, it neither relieve personal injury of potential victims, nor give superpriority to the personal tort victims.
[Figure 1: The personal tort relief under traditional bankruptcy law:]
[Figure 1]
〓
Value of the property in a civilized society, no matter how big they have, the first principles of accident relief, policy and specific measures, are the save of lives above all else! China''s F-10 fighter, for example, though its value may be more than RMB100bn, in the event of mechanical failure, pilot''s escape is the preferred choice. However, Figure 1, telling us exactly and clearly the opposite legal system: monetary claims take precedence over the calims of life.
In mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, if the traditional bankruptcy law is applicable to bankruptcy proceedings, the Financial claims of financial institutions, labor claims and national claims will take precedence over personal injury tort claims, therefore, traditional bankruptcy law such created a relief mechanism in which the monetary claim is higher than the claim of life. What is wrong with the traditional bankruptcy law? From a Mere analysis, we could find that distribution system of traditional bankruptcy law has replaced the full compensation system of tort law. From the logic of law, either bankruptcy law claims distribution system or full compensation system of tort law must be a system error, and must be discarded, otherwise we can not explain the legal phenomena, why the property claim is more important than life claim, monetary claims take precedence over life claims. However, if the premise of wrong, the result of a logic consequence should not be reliable. Experience and history has proven that the system of tort law and insolvency law regimes has played a key role in promoting the maintenance of order and progress of society in modern and contemporary social and economic development, the two can be neglected.
Question is, then, what is the reason? Did It Generated in the application of traditional bankruptcy law to the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases? As far as the conclusions, the traditional bankruptcy law, if as an applicable law to mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, will inevitably lead to a confusion of capital debt and personal injury debt of bankrupt enterprises. This confusion is the fundamental reason by which lead the monetary claims prior to life claim. Such a confusion is caused by the basic nature of the traditional bankruptcy law and tort law: In addition to the "restitution" remedy, the remedy for personal injury can rely on is only the monetary conversion from liability of the debtor, such conversion of any liability by bankruptcy law, make the victim as a claimant in bankruptcy proceeding for his injury.
Due to the limitations of history, bankruptcy law is taken as a Recovery Act for the basic purpose of merchant credit, based on the principle of freedom of contract which provides for the recovery order bits of different commercial creditors. In traditional bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy claims are classified as two types of secured claims and unsecured claims. Bankruptcy claims classification and bankruptcy debt recovery sequence order constitute the core framework of the traditional bankruptcy law. The liability for Mass Personal Injury is transformed into a common unsecured claims by traditional bankruptcy law, and this would inevitably produce a legal phenomena that monetary claims take precedence over the life claims. In short, the traditional bankruptcy law cannot mechanically apply to mass personal tort bankruptcy cases, otherwise, will inevitably lead to a legal result of "monetary claim is prior to life claim" of anti-morality, anti-law and anti-society.
Bankruptcy law, however, is developed to solve the problem of corporate bankruptcies, but also has its structural advantages to in relief of mass personal injury victims with fair and efficient solution, for example, its nationwide uniform system of jurisdiction could both prevent the legal localism from competition for the purpose of property, but also to prevent unfairness to the plaintiff to win the first-come, and also correct the debtor''s illegal behaviors; Also, the debtor''s bankruptcy reorganization proceedings could maximum the value of the estate, both conducive to the realization of personal tort victim''s relief, but also will help reduce the damage to the overall welfare of society.
The view of this article is that mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, are inevitable social phenomenon, using the Freemasonry Way of official and tortfeasors is impossible to all of the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases in china, we should gradually handle the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases through bankruptcy law, relief the personal tort victims. The ultimate purpose of economic law is the regulation to both government and enterprises, market behaviors for the aim of promoting a benign operation of economic and social. To this end, our "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" should be the last protection of personal tort victims to obtain legal relief, it is necessary to relief the potential victim, and grand all personal victims super-priority, taking precedence over all other bankruptcy creditors, in order to avoid such a phenomenon of things elegant and life cheap, it is anti-ethic, and the law and anti-social phenomenon, but just produced by the application of traditional bankruptcy law to mass personal injury torts. To this end, we should update our Enterprise Bankruptcy Law to a modern bankruptcy law. Figure 2 shows the transformation of traditional bankruptcy law to upgrade, in order to meet the needs of relief of the commercial creditors, or the relief of life claims.
[Figure 2: Personal tort claims relief under modern bankruptcy law]
[Figure 2]
〓
Figure 2 shows what a modern bankruptcy law should be, it is consistent with the most basic principles of economic law - equity and efficiency principles, not only reflect the basic needs of society, but has sufficient theoretical support from and by the basic principles of law and economics: justice and fairness, the basic spirit of law; benefits and costs, fundamental factors of economy. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, modern bankruptcy law is in line with the full compensation principle of tort law and cost principle of economic activity, in line with the Pareto optimality principle in the improvement of social system.
These two icons reflect the core content and writing ideas of this thesis, accordingly, this thesis consist of four chapters, written progressively at each level along the main line from the generation of the problem to the analysis, argument, problem-solving program, and finally, to a Natural conclusions. In chapter I, I analyzed the characteristics of mass personal injury tort, pointing out that, in solving the relief of mass personal injury claims, the traditional bankruptcy law has both the inherent structural advantages and institutional barriers: debts casting and classifications are required by mandatory rules without any distinction of nature of debts. China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, although adopted in 2008, still belongs to the traditional bankruptcy law: it classifies the personal injury claims as ordinary unsecured claims, not only exclude potential victims from bankruptcy proceeding, but also grand no priority to personal injury claimants.
In chapter II, for the purpose of protection of both mass injury claimants'' human rights and successful reorganization of debtor, In particular, I argued that it is necessary to take the potential victims as creditors in bankruptcy proceeding and give relief to the potential victims, based on the principles of and aims of bankruptcy law, and combined with the judicial and legislative practices in the United States. I pointed out that the relief for personal injury potential victims also benefit to the protection of debtor''s re-organization, and it is In line with the spirit of equal protection of the rights of the creditor and the debtor of bankruptcy law, help reducing harm to the welfare of society as a whole.
Chapter III is the core of this paper. This paper tries to avoid abstract discussion of the legal aspects of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims, the establishment of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims is basically derived from the analysis of both law and economics, especially from the theories of legal personality, theories of the corporate capital structure, theories of the nature of enterprise. About the nature of enterprise, the traditional civil law and company law mainly focused on the legal personality of an enterprise, took it as an entity to bear civil liability, no matter a corporate or a partnership. The nature of the enterprise, regardless of law, in economics, is different from law. Different perspective will inevitably produce different conclusions. For example, Coase research enterprise from the perspective of the study on enterprise integration (monopoly), he found the existence of transaction costs, came to the conclusion that the enterprise was a price mechanism. Since Kos "nature of the form" (1937), Western economists have focused to explore the nature of the business from the perspective of transaction costs, enterprise as a price mechanism has gradually become a consensus. As to the studying on the nature of enterprise from the perspective of capital, the main aims has been for the analysis of corporate earnings and cost issues.
The purpose of analysis of the nature of enterprise in my thesis is to decide the capital responsibility by analyzing capital structure of enterprise. The enterprise structure can be divided into two structures, capital structure and production structure. These two structures are different but related. The capital structure consists of equity capitals and debt capitals. The structure of production refers to the boundaries of the enterprise. This chapter focuses, from an economic perspective, on the capital structure of enterprise, comes to the conclusion that enterprise is a capital portfolio, a community of interests of the various types of investors. In this chapter, through the analysis of the nature of capital portfolio companies, I try to make the distinction between the nature of liability of mass injury personal claims and the commercial debts. I argue that the enterprise is a combination of capital, the claims of various types of capitalists, who are the capital providers to the bankrupt enterprise and have business interest in the in the process of production and trade, should be classified as commercial credits which recognized as the capital recovery arrangements by law, especially bankruptcy law, whether the secured credits, unsecured credits. This capital transaction arrangements exist based on the non-bankruptcy law, recognized and acknowledged the traditional bankruptcy law. Liabilities for personal injury was transferred into commom unsecured credit by traditional bankruptcy law, but originally it did not belong to the scope of the commercial claims against the bankrupt, this transmission was lacking of theoretical support of the law and economics. In economics, commercial credits belongs to the areas of enterprise capital, should bear the risk of capital in the earnings process; personal injury tort claims, as externality, belong to the cost of production in the earnings process, must be borne by the capitals. Commercial claims belong to the areas of creditors'' contractual rights in law, personal injury debt is the statutory obligations of the scope of enterprises. Traditional bankruptcy law is a merchant law, its core is on the distribution of property by maximizing the value of the estate. If the claims classification of the traditional bankruptcy law was mechanically applicable to mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, this will inevitably lead to the capitals and cost to be confused, in theory, and also an contravention of the principle of law, and a violation to the principles of economics; in effect will inevitably lead to the victims to bear the tort costs for tortfeasors.
Under the premise of the above analysis, this paper argues that the "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" shall undertake the functions of tort law and follow the principle of full compensation of tort law in mass personal injury bankruptcy cases. For this purpose, the establishment of super-priority system for relief of personal injury claimants should be necessary to bankruptcy law, under this super-priority personal injury claimants'' claims should take precedence over any other creditors. Moreover, when the bankruptcy property is insufficient to compensate the personal injury claimants, the enterprise capital providers, such as controlling shareholder, controlling creditors, and senior managers should be jointly and severally liable to the victims. As a theoretical omnibus in the last part of this chapter, this chapter carried out an economic law analysis, by both positive and negative, to the relief system of mass injury tort claimants in bankruptcy from both respective of the purpose of economic law and economic law externalities. And also tried to make a constructive academic point of view, such as there are also external issues in economic law, as well as the structural problems exist in market regulation law.
Chapter IV is the final part of this thesis, I made a suggestion that a special chapter "Special Provisions for Mass Personal Injury Tort Bankruptcy" should be inserted in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. I selected 10 typical problems to try to build a basic legal framework for relief of mass personal injury claimants in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, in order to make "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law," not only be able to maintain the stability of the basic content and structure, but also be able to cope with mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, to give personal injury victims full and effective relief. By this way, the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law should be upgraded to a modern bankruptcy law, have functions both to solve the problem of distribution of commercial credits, also effectively solve the problem of mass personal injury tort claims relief. In addition to institution building proposal, this chapter also explored and expanded relevant theories, such as market share liability theory and theory of infringement before bankruptcy, to compensate for ontology insufficient in order to ensure this papers in the overall structure and content of the smooth flow of harmony and unity.
My writing goal was concise, compelling, and easy to read and understand, and no longer than the thesis topic. I would like to thank Professor Liu Ruifu, Li Ming, Zhang Shouwen, Liu Jianwen, Gan Peizhong, Pan Jianfeng, Jiang Daxing, Piao Wendan and all other professors for helpful comments on my previous draft of this thesis. Useful comments were also gathered in day-to-day studying. I thank all of the authors whose books or articles gave me meaningful ideas.
Keywords: Mass Personal Injury Tort, Future Claim of Personal Injury, Capital Portfolio, Classification of Claims, super-priority system.
Two years later after the implement of Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, China shocked the world with the scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder by which about more than three hundred thousand children large-scale were exposed, according to the statistics at that time. All of the courts rejected the lawsuit filed by victims concerning the scandal, as a result of the courts'' rejection, no mass personal tort litigation happened in China. However, the existences of mass personal injury torts were undeniable fact in both China and the world. Child victims relief programs nationwide, ultimately was determined by the central Government in Masonic way by government and tort enterprises, thus avoiding a chain of large-scale bankruptcy cases of mass torts. The result of Masonic relief, the whole people to bear the main costs for the corporate tort liability, most of the tort enterprises avoided the misfortune of bankruptcy by mass torts. It was envisaged that if China did not take the official Masonic relief, a large number of tort enterprises might be fallen into bankruptcy proceedings due to the personal tort liability and, we want to know whether the China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was able to respond to such mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, granted super-priority to the exposed children in bankruptcy proceeding? Similar to those scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder cases, so many mass torts happened in china, for example, there are more than 200 cancer villages in China caused by rivers pollution, and special industry pollution; There are more than ten millions staffs in the field of the production and trade of asbestos, The users of asbestos production in China should be more numerous. Many of the victims sued for losing but failed due to difficulties of proof in a particular causal relationship. Mass personal torts are very common, but are still not admitted by the existing legal system, which has become a strong umbrella of mass torts enterprises. Mass torts, including both property damage and personal injury, occur most frequently in economic activity of enterprises and courts are most troubled by those mass tort cases. This thesis is the study on personal injury victims'' relief mechanism in mass tort bankruptcy. Mass personal injury tort is characterized by not only the vast numbers of victims, a large number of potential victims, dispersed litigation, large-scale compensation, but also an uncertainty of future actions faced by tortfeasors. Tortfeasors may choose to file for bankruptcy liquidation or reorganization procedures to address personal tort liability. Therefore, when mass tort personal injury liability lead to the tortfeasors filed for bankruptcy, the relief for personal tort victims, potential victims, will become the most important issue in the mass personal injury bankruptcy proceedings. Visits China''s current Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, unparalleled in terms of knot, shown in Figure 1, it neither relieve personal injury of potential victims, nor give superpriority to the personal tort victims.
[Figure 1: The personal tort relief under traditional bankruptcy law:]
[Figure 1]
〓
Value of the property in a civilized society, no matter how big they have, the first principles of accident relief, policy and specific measures, are the save of lives above all else! China''s F-10 fighter, for example, though its value may be more than RMB100bn, in the event of mechanical failure, pilot''s escape is the preferred choice. However, Figure 1, telling us exactly and clearly the opposite legal system: monetary claims take precedence over the calims of life.
In mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, if the traditional bankruptcy law is applicable to bankruptcy proceedings, the Financial claims of financial institutions, labor claims and national claims will take precedence over personal injury tort claims, therefore, traditional bankruptcy law such created a relief mechanism in which the monetary claim is higher than the claim of life. What is wrong with the traditional bankruptcy law? From a Mere analysis, we could find that distribution system of traditional bankruptcy law has replaced the full compensation system of tort law. From the logic of law, either bankruptcy law claims distribution system or full compensation system of tort law must be a system error, and must be discarded, otherwise we can not explain the legal phenomena, why the property claim is more important than life claim, monetary claims take precedence over life claims. However, if the premise of wrong, the result of a logic consequence should not be reliable. Experience and history has proven that the system of tort law and insolvency law regimes has played a key role in promoting the maintenance of order and progress of society in modern and contemporary social and economic development, the two can be neglected.
Question is, then, what is the reason? Did It Generated in the application of traditional bankruptcy law to the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases? As far as the conclusions, the traditional bankruptcy law, if as an applicable law to mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, will inevitably lead to a confusion of capital debt and personal injury debt of bankrupt enterprises. This confusion is the fundamental reason by which lead the monetary claims prior to life claim. Such a confusion is caused by the basic nature of the traditional bankruptcy law and tort law: In addition to the "restitution" remedy, the remedy for personal injury can rely on is only the monetary conversion from liability of the debtor, such conversion of any liability by bankruptcy law, make the victim as a claimant in bankruptcy proceeding for his injury.
Due to the limitations of history, bankruptcy law is taken as a Recovery Act for the basic purpose of merchant credit, based on the principle of freedom of contract which provides for the recovery order bits of different commercial creditors. In traditional bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy claims are classified as two types of secured claims and unsecured claims. Bankruptcy claims classification and bankruptcy debt recovery sequence order constitute the core framework of the traditional bankruptcy law. The liability for Mass Personal Injury is transformed into a common unsecured claims by traditional bankruptcy law, and this would inevitably produce a legal phenomena that monetary claims take precedence over the life claims. In short, the traditional bankruptcy law cannot mechanically apply to mass personal tort bankruptcy cases, otherwise, will inevitably lead to a legal result of "monetary claim is prior to life claim" of anti-morality, anti-law and anti-society.
Bankruptcy law, however, is developed to solve the problem of corporate bankruptcies, but also has its structural advantages to in relief of mass personal injury victims with fair and efficient solution, for example, its nationwide uniform system of jurisdiction could both prevent the legal localism from competition for the purpose of property, but also to prevent unfairness to the plaintiff to win the first-come, and also correct the debtor''s illegal behaviors; Also, the debtor''s bankruptcy reorganization proceedings could maximum the value of the estate, both conducive to the realization of personal tort victim''s relief, but also will help reduce the damage to the overall welfare of society.
The view of this article is that mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, are inevitable social phenomenon, using the Freemasonry Way of official and tortfeasors is impossible to all of the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases in china, we should gradually handle the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases through bankruptcy law, relief the personal tort victims. The ultimate purpose of economic law is the regulation to both government and enterprises, market behaviors for the aim of promoting a benign operation of economic and social. To this end, our "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" should be the last protection of personal tort victims to obtain legal relief, it is necessary to relief the potential victim, and grand all personal victims super-priority, taking precedence over all other bankruptcy creditors, in order to avoid such a phenomenon of things elegant and life cheap, it is anti-ethic, and the law and anti-social phenomenon, but just produced by the application of traditional bankruptcy law to mass personal injury torts. To this end, we should update our Enterprise Bankruptcy Law to a modern bankruptcy law. Figure 2 shows the transformation of traditional bankruptcy law to upgrade, in order to meet the needs of relief of the commercial creditors, or the relief of life claims.
[Figure 2: Personal tort claims relief under modern bankruptcy law]
[Figure 2]
〓
Figure 2 shows what a modern bankruptcy law should be, it is consistent with the most basic principles of economic law - equity and efficiency principles, not only reflect the basic needs of society, but has sufficient theoretical support from and by the basic principles of law and economics: justice and fairness, the basic spirit of law; benefits and costs, fundamental factors of economy. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, modern bankruptcy law is in line with the full compensation principle of tort law and cost principle of economic activity, in line with the Pareto optimality principle in the improvement of social system.
These two icons reflect the core content and writing ideas of this thesis, accordingly, this thesis consist of four chapters, written progressively at each level along the main line from the generation of the problem to the analysis, argument, problem-solving program, and finally, to a Natural conclusions. In chapter I, I analyzed the characteristics of mass personal injury tort, pointing out that, in solving the relief of mass personal injury claims, the traditional bankruptcy law has both the inherent structural advantages and institutional barriers: debts casting and classifications are required by mandatory rules without any distinction of nature of debts. China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, although adopted in 2008, still belongs to the traditional bankruptcy law: it classifies the personal injury claims as ordinary unsecured claims, not only exclude potential victims from bankruptcy proceeding, but also grand no priority to personal injury claimants.
In chapter II, for the purpose of protection of both mass injury claimants'' human rights and successful reorganization of debtor, In particular, I argued that it is necessary to take the potential victims as creditors in bankruptcy proceeding and give relief to the potential victims, based on the principles of and aims of bankruptcy law, and combined with the judicial and legislative practices in the United States. I pointed out that the relief for personal injury potential victims also benefit to the protection of debtor''s re-organization, and it is In line with the spirit of equal protection of the rights of the creditor and the debtor of bankruptcy law, help reducing harm to the welfare of society as a whole.
Chapter III is the core of this paper. This paper tries to avoid abstract discussion of the legal aspects of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims, the establishment of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims is basically derived from the analysis of both law and economics, especially from the theories of legal personality, theories of the corporate capital structure, theories of the nature of enterprise. About the nature of enterprise, the traditional civil law and company law mainly focused on the legal personality of an enterprise, took it as an entity to bear civil liability, no matter a corporate or a partnership. The nature of the enterprise, regardless of law, in economics, is different from law. Different perspective will inevitably produce different conclusions. For example, Coase research enterprise from the perspective of the study on enterprise integration (monopoly), he found the existence of transaction costs, came to the conclusion that the enterprise was a price mechanism. Since Kos "nature of the form" (1937), Western economists have focused to explore the nature of the business from the perspective of transaction costs, enterprise as a price mechanism has gradually become a consensus. As to the studying on the nature of enterprise from the perspective of capital, the main aims has been for the analysis of corporate earnings and cost issues.
The purpose of analysis of the nature of enterprise in my thesis is to decide the capital responsibility by analyzing capital structure of enterprise. The enterprise structure can be divided into two structures, capital structure and production structure. These two structures are different but related. The capital structure consists of equity capitals and debt capitals. The structure of production refers to the boundaries of the enterprise. This chapter focuses, from an economic perspective, on the capital structure of enterprise, comes to the conclusion that enterprise is a capital portfolio, a community of interests of the various types of investors. In this chapter, through the analysis of the nature of capital portfolio companies, I try to make the distinction between the nature of liability of mass injury personal claims and the commercial debts. I argue that the enterprise is a combination of capital, the claims of various types of capitalists, who are the capital providers to the bankrupt enterprise and have business interest in the in the process of production and trade, should be classified as commercial credits which recognized as the capital recovery arrangements by law, especially bankruptcy law, whether the secured credits, unsecured credits. This capital transaction arrangements exist based on the non-bankruptcy law, recognized and acknowledged the traditional bankruptcy law. Liabilities for personal injury was transferred into commom unsecured credit by traditional bankruptcy law, but originally it did not belong to the scope of the commercial claims against the bankrupt, this transmission was lacking of theoretical support of the law and economics. In economics, commercial credits belongs to the areas of enterprise capital, should bear the risk of capital in the earnings process; personal injury tort claims, as externality, belong to the cost of production in the earnings process, must be borne by the capitals. Commercial claims belong to the areas of creditors'' contractual rights in law, personal injury debt is the statutory obligations of the scope of enterprises. Traditional bankruptcy law is a merchant law, its core is on the distribution of property by maximizing the value of the estate. If the claims classification of the traditional bankruptcy law was mechanically applicable to mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, this will inevitably lead to the capitals and cost to be confused, in theory, and also an contravention of the principle of law, and a violation to the principles of economics; in effect will inevitably lead to the victims to bear the tort costs for tortfeasors.
Under the premise of the above analysis, this paper argues that the "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" shall undertake the functions of tort law and follow the principle of full compensation of tort law in mass personal injury bankruptcy cases. For this purpose, the establishment of super-priority system for relief of personal injury claimants should be necessary to bankruptcy law, under this super-priority personal injury claimants'' claims should take precedence over any other creditors. Moreover, when the bankruptcy property is insufficient to compensate the personal injury claimants, the enterprise capital providers, such as controlling shareholder, controlling creditors, and senior managers should be jointly and severally liable to the victims. As a theoretical omnibus in the last part of this chapter, this chapter carried out an economic law analysis, by both positive and negative, to the relief system of mass injury tort claimants in bankruptcy from both respective of the purpose of economic law and economic law externalities. And also tried to make a constructive academic point of view, such as there are also external issues in economic law, as well as the structural problems exist in market regulation law.
Chapter IV is the final part of this thesis, I made a suggestion that a special chapter "Special Provisions for Mass Personal Injury Tort Bankruptcy" should be inserted in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. I selected 10 typical problems to try to build a basic legal framework for relief of mass personal injury claimants in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, in order to make "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law," not only be able to maintain the stability of the basic content and structure, but also be able to cope with mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, to give personal injury victims full and effective relief. By this way, the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law should be upgraded to a modern bankruptcy law, have functions both to solve the problem of distribution of commercial credits, also effectively solve the problem of mass personal injury tort claims relief. In addition to institution building proposal, this chapter also explored and expanded relevant theories, such as market share liability theory and theory of infringement before bankruptcy, to compensate for ontology insufficient in order to ensure this papers in the overall structure and content of the smooth flow of harmony and unity.
My writing goal was concise, compelling, and easy to read and understand, and no longer than the thesis topic. I would like to thank Professor Liu Ruifu, Li Ming, Zhang Shouwen, Liu Jianwen, Gan Peizhong, Pan Jianfeng, Jiang Daxing, Piao Wendan and all other professors for helpful comments on my previous draft of this thesis. Useful comments were also gathered in day-to-day studying. I thank all of the authors whose books or articles gave me meaningful ideas.
Keywords: Mass Personal Injury Tort, Future Claim of Personal Injury, Capital Portfolio, Classification of Claims, super-priority system.
转载请注明出处海之美文 » 大规模人身侵权债权的破产法救济制度研究