[ 許德風 ]——(2012-1-12) / 已閱41372次

[93] Koopmans v. Farm Credit Services of Mid-America, ACA, 102 F.3d 874 (7thCir. 1996); Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1129.06 [1][c] (Rev. 15th ed. 2000).
[94] “…abandonment of the collateral to the creditor would clearly satisfy indubitable equivalence, as would a lien on similar collateral... Unsecured notes as to the secured claim or equity securities of the debtor would not be the indubitable equivalent...” 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6544; Gerard McCormack, Corporate Rescue Law: An Anglo-American Perspective, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2008, p. 265.
[95] Warren et al., supra note 58, pp. 711 ff.
[96] 11 USC § 1129(b)(2).
[97] Klee, All You Ever wanted to Know about Cram Down Under the New Bankruptcy Code, 53 Am. Bankr. L. J. 133 (1979).
[98] LoPucki, Bargaining Over Equity's Share in the Bankruptcy Reorganization of Large, Publicly Held Companies, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 125, 149-150 (1990).
[99] Baird, supra note 27, p. 281.
[100] In re Ames Dept. Stores, Inc., 115 B.R. 34 (Bankr. S.D.N.Z. 1990)。也有一些法院對交叉擔保持懷疑態度。In re Saybrook Mfg. Co., 963 F.2d 1490 (1992, CA11 Ga).
[101] Dahiya, Debtor-in-Possession Financing and Bankruptcy Resolution: Empirical Evidence, 69 J. Fin. Econ. 259, 265 (2003).
[102] Bris et al., The Costs of Bankruptcy: Chapter 7 Liquidation versus Chapter 11 Reorganization, 61 The Journal of Finance 1253, 1290 (2006).
[103] Frank, An Empiricial Investigation of U.S. Firms in Reorganization, 44 Journal of Finance. 747 (1989).
[104] Ayotte et al., Review: An Efficiency-Based Explanation for Current Corporate Reorganization Practice (Lynn M. LoPucki, Courting Failure, University of Michigan Press, 2005), 73 U. Chi. L. Rev. 425 (2006).
[105] MüKo-Eidenmüller, § 222 InsO Rn. 44; Uhlenbruck-Lüer, § 222 InsO Rn. 20; BGH MDR 2006, 116 (118) (BGH vom 7.7.2005 – IX ZB 266/04).
[106] MüKo-Eidenmüller, § 222 InsO Rn. 29; HK-Flessner, § 222 InsO Rn. 11; Hess/Weis, Die sachgerechte Abgrenzung der Gläubigergruppen nach der InsO, InVo 1998, 64 (67).
[107] Marotzke, Die dinglichen Sicherheiten im neuen Insolvenzrecht, ZZP 1996, 429 (437).
[108] 前引注39, Bork, Rn.336.
[109] Schiessler, Der Insolvenzplan, Bielefeld, 1997, S. 149.
[110] 在德國破產實踐中，法院通常不會對被給以利息補償的擔保債權人的投票權提出質疑。LG Göttingen NZI 2005, 41 (42 f.); OLG Köln (Beschluss vom 5. 1. 2001 – 2 W 228 / 00) NZI 2001, 660 ff.
[111] 前引注7，安建書，第150頁。
[112] 見《最高人民法院關于審理企業破產案件確定管理人報酬的規定》，第13條。

總共5頁　　[1] [2] [3] [4] 5

上一頁