{"title":"解除辅助清盘的神秘性:废除地方实体和程序规则","authors":"Look Chan Ho","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1081187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Scottish decision in Morris (Liquidator of Bank of Credit & Commerce International), Re Petition of The Bank of England is correct that an ancillary winding-up makes good sense and may disapply local procedural rules that do not serve any practical purpose. Owing to a misunderstanding of the English authorities and the principle of pari passu distribution, the Scottish court wrongly concluded that local substantive rules may not be disapplied.","PeriodicalId":129013,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-01-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Demystifying Ancillary Winding-Up: Disapplying Local Substantive and Procedural Rules\",\"authors\":\"Look Chan Ho\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.1081187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Scottish decision in Morris (Liquidator of Bank of Credit & Commerce International), Re Petition of The Bank of England is correct that an ancillary winding-up makes good sense and may disapply local procedural rules that do not serve any practical purpose. Owing to a misunderstanding of the English authorities and the principle of pari passu distribution, the Scottish court wrongly concluded that local substantive rules may not be disapplied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Philosophy of Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2008-01-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Philosophy of Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1081187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy of Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1081187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Demystifying Ancillary Winding-Up: Disapplying Local Substantive and Procedural Rules
The Scottish decision in Morris (Liquidator of Bank of Credit & Commerce International), Re Petition of The Bank of England is correct that an ancillary winding-up makes good sense and may disapply local procedural rules that do not serve any practical purpose. Owing to a misunderstanding of the English authorities and the principle of pari passu distribution, the Scottish court wrongly concluded that local substantive rules may not be disapplied.