...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>International Insolvency Review >Corporate Restructuring, the Evolution of Corporate Assets and the Public Interest
【24h】

Corporate Restructuring, the Evolution of Corporate Assets and the Public Interest

机译：公司重组，公司资产的演变与公共利益

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In Canada, the public interest has always been a significant consideration in the restructuring of insolvent corporations. And with the introduction of new proceedings under Canada's restructuring statute, liquidating proceedings, an important consideration is whether these proceedings are in the public interest. Unfortunately, although the Supreme Court in Century Services traced the history of the CCAA and spoke of its remedial purpose, it did not discuss liquidating CCAAs or how they can be reconciled with the public interest purpose of the legislation, which leaves unanswered questions about the seemingly contradictory purpose of the CCAA and the nature of these liquidating plans of arrangement, and their impact on the public interest.Given the importance of achieving a public interest goal in CCAA proceedings, it is important to determine how to conceptualize liquidating CCAA proceedings as working towards that goal. Eight decades ago, when the CCAA was enacted, the types of proceedings taking place under the legislation were different because the asset bases of corporations were different. Reconciling these changing proceedings with the public interest goal of the legislation is necessary if proceedings are going to continue evolving under the CCAA.The argument in this paper took a broad, value-based approach. I maintain that so long as the 'public interest' can be defined to include the continuance of value in the economy, in any form, then any proceedings, regardless of form or outcome, that add value or serves to maintain the value already there, would fulfill that purpose of the CCAA. Put another way, so long as the proceeding causes value to be retained that is more than the sum of its parts, I argue that it is in the public interest. Conversely, if value is lost in liquidation because certain assets cannot be valued and sold, then these proceedings (or any proceedings) are not achieving the goal of the legislation. But the answer is not to cease taking these proceedings; it is to find a way to acknowledge and account for the value of intangible assets. Once that happens, a more accurate determination can be made as to how to proceed in any restructuring.I drew three conclusions in this paper. First, the public interest in the context of the CCAA should be considered in the context of value maximization rather than the welfare of the different constituencies. This should take into account the changing nature of corporate assets, and the public interest in this paper refers to the interests of directly and indirectly affected stakeholders of the corporation. Second, corporations have changed since the enactment of the CCAA. Their assets have evolved to become less firm or industry specific, and they have also become less tangible. Third, the consideration of value added in a restructuring of a corporation containing intangible assets is difficult because these assets have value not easily quantified. In addition, although tangible assets have evolved to become less firm specific, intangibles remain firm specific, and unless they can be transferred to another company as a whole, much of their value is lost. Once those premises are accepted, then a liquidation of a modern corporation leads to a potential loss of value, which means the public interest, one of the underlying considerations of the CCAA, may well not be served unless a way can be devised to value these evolving intangible assets.
机译：在加拿大，公共利益一直是破产公司重组的重要考虑因素。随着加拿大重组规程中新程序的引入，即清算程序的出现，一个重要的考虑是这些程序是否符合公共利益。不幸的是，尽管世纪服务最高法院追溯了CCAA的历史并谈到了其补救目的，但它并未讨论清算CCAA或如何将其与立法的公共利益目的相协调的问题，这对于看似不存在的问题仍未得到解答。鉴于CCAA的目的相互矛盾，这些清算安排的性质及其对公共利益的影响。鉴于在CCAA诉讼中实现公共利益目标的重要性，重要的是确定如何将CCAA诉讼的清算概念化为这个目标。八十年前，CCAA颁布时，由于公司的资产基础不同，根据法律进行的诉讼类型也有所不同。如果要根据CCAA继续发展诉讼程序，则有必要使这些不断变化的诉讼程序与立法的公共利益目标保持一致。本文的论点采用了一种广泛的，基于价值的方法。我坚持认为，只要可以将“公共利益”定义为以任何形式包括经济中价值的持续性，那么任何增加价值或维持已经存在的价值的程序，无论其形式或结果如何，将实现CCAA的目标。换句话说，只要程序导致保留的价值大于其各个部分的总和，我认为这符合公共利益。相反，如果由于某些资产无法估价和出售而在清算中损失了价值，那么这些诉讼程序（或任何诉讼程序）就无法实现立法的目标。但是答案不是停止诉讼。它是找到一种方法来确认和说明无形资产的价值。一旦发生这种情况，就可以对如何进行任何重组做出更准确的决定。我得出了三个结论。首先，应该在价值最大化的背景下考虑CCAA方面的公共利益，而不是不同选区的福利。这应该考虑到公司资产的变化性质，本文的公共利益是指直接或间接影响到公司利益相关者的利益。第二，自CCAA颁布以来，公司发生了变化。他们的资产已经发展为变得不那么固定或针对特定行业，并且也变得越来越无形。第三，在对包含无形资产的公司进行重组时，很难考虑增值，因为这些资产的价值难以量化。此外，尽管有形资产已经发展为对公司的依赖性降低了，但无形资产仍然对公司具有特殊性，除非将它们整体上转让给另一家公司，否则其价值会损失很多。一旦这些前提被接受，那么现代公司的清算就会导致潜在的价值损失，这意味着，除非能够设计出一种评估这些价值的方法，否则公共利益（CCAA的基本考虑之一）很可能无法得到满足。不断发展的无形资产。

著录项

  • 来源
    《International Insolvency Review》 |2013年第1期|29-54|共26页
  • 作者

    Jassmine Girgis;

  • 作者单位

    Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号