重新思考优先权:相对优先权规则的曙光和欧盟新的“债权人最佳利益”测试

Axel Krohn
{"title":"重新思考优先权:相对优先权规则的曙光和欧盟新的“债权人最佳利益”测试","authors":"Axel Krohn","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3554349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"[Revised version as of June 20, 2020] \n \nArticle 11 of the EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency provides for a cross-class cram-down mechanism. When implementing the instrument, EU Member States may choose between an ‘absolute priority rule’ (APR) and an EU specific ‘relative priority rule’ (EU RPR) as a condition for the use of cram-down powers. The EU RPR is characterized mainly by the fact that it offers more flexibility in the negotiation of restructuring plans. So far, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that the European legislator has also introduced a novel and upgraded ‘best interest of creditors’ test (EU BIT) as part of the mechanism. This article explores the interaction of the EU RPR and the EU BIT from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. It concludes that, through its interaction with the EU BIT, the EU RPR does in theory not lead to the drastic consequences often described. A properly interpreted EU BIT absorbs large ‘distortions’ in the allocation of reorganization value. However, this article points out problems that could arise in practice. The fact that under an EU RPR/EU BIT cross-class cram-down two hypothetical values mark out the realm in which the EU RPR operates, and the priority rule itself lacks a clear guideline for entitlement, gives cause for concern that the praised flexibility would come at the expense of plan negotiability and plan acceptance.","PeriodicalId":137765,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rethinking Priority: The Dawn of the Relative Priority Rule and a New ‘Best Interest of Creditors’ Test in the European Union\",\"authors\":\"Axel Krohn\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3554349\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"[Revised version as of June 20, 2020] \\n \\nArticle 11 of the EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency provides for a cross-class cram-down mechanism. When implementing the instrument, EU Member States may choose between an ‘absolute priority rule’ (APR) and an EU specific ‘relative priority rule’ (EU RPR) as a condition for the use of cram-down powers. The EU RPR is characterized mainly by the fact that it offers more flexibility in the negotiation of restructuring plans. So far, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that the European legislator has also introduced a novel and upgraded ‘best interest of creditors’ test (EU BIT) as part of the mechanism. This article explores the interaction of the EU RPR and the EU BIT from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. It concludes that, through its interaction with the EU BIT, the EU RPR does in theory not lead to the drastic consequences often described. A properly interpreted EU BIT absorbs large ‘distortions’ in the allocation of reorganization value. However, this article points out problems that could arise in practice. The fact that under an EU RPR/EU BIT cross-class cram-down two hypothetical values mark out the realm in which the EU RPR operates, and the priority rule itself lacks a clear guideline for entitlement, gives cause for concern that the praised flexibility would come at the expense of plan negotiability and plan acceptance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":137765,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-06-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3554349\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Private Law - Financial Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3554349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

[2020年6月20日修订版]欧盟重组和破产指令第11条规定了跨类别强制执行机制。在实施该工具时,欧盟成员国可以在“绝对优先规则”(APR)和欧盟特定的“相对优先规则”(EU RPR)之间进行选择,作为使用强制权力的条件。欧盟重组计划的主要特点是它在重组计划的谈判中提供了更大的灵活性。到目前为止,欧洲立法者还引入了一种新的和升级的“债权人最佳利益测试”(EU BIT)作为该机制的一部分,这一事实并没有引起足够的关注。本文从理论和实践两个角度探讨了欧盟区域可再生资源与欧盟投资协定的互动关系。它的结论是,通过与欧盟BIT的互动,欧盟RPR在理论上不会导致经常描述的严重后果。一个合理解释的欧盟双边投资协定吸收了重组价值分配中的大量“扭曲”。然而,本文指出了在实践中可能出现的问题。事实上,在EU RPR/EU BIT的跨等级限制下,两个假设的价值标记出了EU RPR运作的领域,并且优先规则本身缺乏权利的明确指导,这引起了人们的担忧,即赞扬的灵活性将以牺牲计划的可协商性和计划的可接受性为代价。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rethinking Priority: The Dawn of the Relative Priority Rule and a New ‘Best Interest of Creditors’ Test in the European Union
[Revised version as of June 20, 2020] Article 11 of the EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency provides for a cross-class cram-down mechanism. When implementing the instrument, EU Member States may choose between an ‘absolute priority rule’ (APR) and an EU specific ‘relative priority rule’ (EU RPR) as a condition for the use of cram-down powers. The EU RPR is characterized mainly by the fact that it offers more flexibility in the negotiation of restructuring plans. So far, not enough attention has been paid to the fact that the European legislator has also introduced a novel and upgraded ‘best interest of creditors’ test (EU BIT) as part of the mechanism. This article explores the interaction of the EU RPR and the EU BIT from both a theoretical and practical standpoint. It concludes that, through its interaction with the EU BIT, the EU RPR does in theory not lead to the drastic consequences often described. A properly interpreted EU BIT absorbs large ‘distortions’ in the allocation of reorganization value. However, this article points out problems that could arise in practice. The fact that under an EU RPR/EU BIT cross-class cram-down two hypothetical values mark out the realm in which the EU RPR operates, and the priority rule itself lacks a clear guideline for entitlement, gives cause for concern that the praised flexibility would come at the expense of plan negotiability and plan acceptance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信