论文部分内容阅读
美国雷曼兄弟公司是全球衍生性金融商品交易的主要参与者之一,其破产引发了诸多金融交易合约的后续履行争议,并在美国及英国等地引起系列诉讼。英国法院通过考察普通法上的反剥夺原则,最终认定合约中的破产约定条款有效。而美国法院则基于破产法上的约定条款无效规则否定了其效力,并认为该条款不属于美国破产法上安全港规则的例外范围。英美两国法院对相同条款的效力作出截然相反的判断,引发了一系列问题,也对我国如何完善破产法的相关机制以妥善处理金融机构破产后的金融合约后续履行问题,进而防范金融系统性风险的传导并维护金融稳定,提供了诸多借鉴之处。
Lehman Brothers, one of the major players in global derivative financial transactions, led to the subsequent performance of many financial transaction contracts and led to a series of litigation in the United States and the United Kingdom. By examining the principle of anti-deprivation in the common law, the British courts finally concluded that the terms of the bankruptcy agreement in the contract were valid. The U.S. courts, on the other hand, rejected its validity on the basis of the rule of inefficiency in the insolvency law and considered it not an exception to the Safe Harbor Rules of U.S. Bankruptcy Law. The courts of the United States and the United Kingdom made the opposite judgment on the validity of the same clauses, which triggered a series of problems. It also analyzed how to perfect the relevant mechanism of bankruptcy law in our country so as to properly handle the subsequent performance of financial contracts after the bankruptcy of financial institutions, Risk transmission and maintain financial stability, provides a lot of reference.