“债随物走原则”的重构与发展——企业重大资产出售中的债权人保护

Restructuring and Developing the Principle of Debt Transferring with Assets:Protecting Creditor in Asset Acquisitions

最高人民法院在《改制司法解释》中规定了"债随物走原则",但由于错误解释了其理论基础,该原则在适用中存在诸多缺陷。尽管最高人民法院最近对该原则有所发展,但仍不尽如人意。《改制司法解释》第6条的理论基础为对优惠性清偿的遏制,随着《企业破产法》第32条的生效,该条在中国实践中已无存在必要。虽然《改制司法解释》第7条的适用范围被明确为针对恶意逃债的欺诈行为,却缺乏对欺诈的具体认定标准。借鉴美国法中继受人责任制度的经验,可确立第7条适用中界定欺诈的客观标准,并改进救济手段;并可发现中国法律中缺乏在企业资产并购中对未来债权人的保护制度。扩大第7条的适用范围,可以打击所有企业资产并购中对债权人的欺诈行为。中国还需要通过建立继受人责任制度,以保护在资产并购中可能受损的未来债权人。

The Supreme People＇s Court provides the principle of debt transferring with assets in its Interpretation of Enterprise Restructuring. But the Supreme Court gave the wrong theory bases to the principle, making the principle be used in a mess. The Article 6 of the Interpretation is to deal with the preference payment. After the new Bankruptcy Law, it is not necessary to exist. The Article 7 of the Interpretation should be deal with the fraudulent transfer. Learning from the successor liability of U. S. , we can establish a clear standard to detect the frauds. Extending the domain of Article 7, we can defeat the frauds in asset acquisitions. We also need to establish the successor liability in China to protect the future creditor in asset acquisitions.