企業跨國破產法制之比較研究 —以聯合國跨國破產模範法為核心

Abstract

隨著全球化發展，企業進行跨國投資之比例漸增，企業之營業活動早已不再限於一國境內。然而企業營運過程中，不免遭逢商業上的失敗而陷於清償不能，此時傳統之破產法制已無法再應付這種新興跨國企業的失敗，而有革新之必要。在「一人一破產」的終極目標下，以聯合國、歐盟此二超國界組織為首，並有越來越多國家皆已意識到此問題而針對本國之破產法制進行改革，簡化跨國間裁判相互承認之要件、增進法院與法院間的互助等手段等，已然蔚為主流。易言之，先進國家皆試圖在公平對待所有債權人的前提下，減少程序多頭馬車帶來的額外成本，比較法對跨國破產案件有什麼樣的規定，乃本文首應研究者；在前半段的最後，本文試圖以雷曼兄弟銀行破產案，作為上開規定如何實踐之具象。接著回到我國，現行《破產法》仍囿於屬地主義的框架，彷彿關起門來進行債務清理，已與國際脫軌；司法院於2016年推出最新版的《債務清理法》草案，當中顯然已經意識到現行法不足以因應我國之經貿發展，然而草案中有若干未完備之處，未來應何去何從，祈望透過本論文能提供一些具體指引。

With the development of globalization, the number of enterprises engaging in cross-border investments has increased significantly, making it clear that an enterprise’s centre of main interest (COMI) can no longer be confined by nationality. However, during business operations, enterprises may inevitably encounter commercial failures that lead to insolvency. In such cases, traditional bankruptcy laws can no longer address the failure of these emerging multinational enterprises, thus necessitating reform. Under the ultimate goal of universalism, supranational organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union have taken the lead, and an increasing number of countries have recognized this issue, reforming their domestic bankruptcy laws. These reforms, for example, aim to simplify the recognition of cross-border judicial decisions, enhance court-to-court cooperation, among other measures. In other words, advanced countries are striving to reduce the additional costs caused by procedural complications while ensuring fair treatment for all creditors. After introducing the relevant regulations, this paper attempts to use the bankruptcy case of Lehman Brothers as a concrete example to illustrate how the aforementioned regulations are applied in practice. Taiwan’s current Bankruptcy Act, on the contrary, remains confined to the principle of territoriality, disconnected from international practices. In 2016, the Judicial Yuan introduced the latest draft of the Debt Clearance Act, which clearly acknowledges that the current law is insufficient to cope with Taiwan's economic and trade development. However, the draft still contains several incomplete provisions. This paper aims to provide specific guidance on the direction future reforms should take.