《企業破產法》被廣泛認為是我國一部重要的市場經濟法，既能完善企業法律制度，規範企業的市場退出機制，也能適當滿足我國加入WTO後的國際經濟交往需要，建立起一個有信用、有效率、有保障、有預期的法律機制和市場環境，打消外資，尤其是金融資本進入中國的顧慮。對於破產法上的期待，毫無例外地都體現在現實的經濟需要之上。從《企業破產法》制定的歷史背景考察，大規模人身侵權受害人的救濟問題從來就沒有進入過立法者的視野。
基本介紹
- 中文名：大規模人身侵權債權的破產法救濟制度研究
- 時間：1994年
- 類別：相關辭彙
- 相關：《企業破產法》
中文摘要
我國《企業破產法》起草於1994年，2004年6月首次提交審議，2006年8月27日由第十屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會第二十三次會議通過，自2007年6月1日起施行。《企業破產法》被廣泛認為是我國一部重要的市場經濟法，既能完善企業法律制度，規範企業的市場退出機制，也能適當滿足我國加入WTO後的國際經濟交往需要，建立起一個有信用、有效率、有保障、有預期的法律機制和市場環境，打消外資，尤其是金融資本進入中國的顧慮。對於破產法上的期待，毫無例外地都體現在現實的經濟需要之上。從《企業破產法》制定的歷史背景考察，大規模人身侵權受害人的救濟問題從來就沒有進入...>> 詳細
我國《企業破產法》起草於1994年，2004年6月首次提交審議，2006年8月27日由第十屆全國人民代表大會常務委員會第二十三次會議通過，自2007年6月1日起施行。《企業破產法》被廣泛認為是我國一部重要的市場經濟法，既能完善企業法律制度，規範企業的市場退出機制，也能適當滿足我國加入WTO後的國際經濟交往需要，建立起一個有信用、有效率、有保障、有預期的法律機制和市場環境，打消外資，尤其是金融資本進入中國的顧慮。對於破產法上的期待，毫無例外地都體現在現實的經濟需要之上。從《企業破產法》制定的歷史背景考察，大規模人身侵權受害人的救濟問題從來就沒有進入過立法者的視野。
在《企業破產法》實施兩年後的2008年，我國震驚世界的含三聚氰胺奶粉大規模人身侵權事件被暴露於世。據當時的統計，受害者兒童總數達三十餘萬人。由於各地法院拒絕受理含三聚氰胺奶粉受害者提起的人身侵權訴訟，在全國並未出現大規模的人身侵權訴訟現象。然而，大規模人身侵權在中國乃至全世界，已是不可否認的事實。全國範圍的受害兒童救濟方案，最終通過政府和侵權企業共濟的方式得以確定，從而迴避了連鎖性大規模人身侵權破產案件的發生。官企共濟救濟方式及其實施的結果是，全民為企業侵權責任承擔主要侵權成本，除極個別的侵權企業破產外，其他的侵權企業都躲避了大規模人身侵權破產的厄運。構想，如果我國當時沒有採取官企共濟的救助方式，數十家乳製品侵權企業因大規模人身侵權賠償責任而進入破產程式，我國的《企業破產法》是否能夠應對這樣的大規模人身侵權破產案件，對數十萬因食用含三聚氰胺奶粉而遭受人身傷害的兒童的提供充分有效的最優先救濟?類似於三聚氰胺奶粉大規模人身侵權案件的現象還有很多，例如，在我國，因江河污染以及特種行業污染所造成的癌症村就有200多個；與石綿生產和石綿製品銷售有關的從業人員就有千萬之眾，石綿製品的使用者和接觸者就更不計其數了。也有一些受害人為人身侵權提起訴訟，但是絕大多數訴訟案件因受害人存在特定因果關係的舉證困難而敗訴。我國的大規模人身侵權現象已經十分普遍，只是未受到現有法律制度的認可而已，在客觀效果上，現有法律制度在一定程度上已經成為大規模人身侵權企業的制度保護傘。
大規模侵權，既包括財產侵權也包括人身侵權，在實踐中最常發生並最困擾法院的是大規模人身侵權案件。本文所研究的是大規模人身侵權債權的破產法救濟救濟制度。大規模人身侵權的特點是，就原告而言，不僅受害者人數眾多，而且還存在眾多的潛在受害人，訴訟分散，規模龐大；在被告方面，也存在複數被告的情況，甚至還存在潛在的被告，而且被告還可能面臨未來不確定的人身損害賠償訴訟。面臨大規模人身侵權賠償責任，侵權企業有時會選擇申請破產清算或破產重整程式，以解決現實的或未來的人身侵權賠償責任。因此，當大規模人身侵權責任導致侵權企業申請破產時，包括潛在受害人在內的所有人身侵權受害人的債權救濟，是大規模人身侵權破產案件破產程式中最重要的問題。考察我國現行的《企業破產法》，就結論而言，如圖1所示，它既不救濟人身侵權潛在受害人，也不優先救濟人身侵權受害人。
[圖1：傳統破產法之下的人身侵權救濟]
〓
在文明社會，無論財產的價值有多大，事故救濟的首要原則、方針和具體措施，都毫無例外地表現為：救助生命高於一切!例如，我國的殲10戰鬥機價值過億元，如果在飛行中一旦出現嚴重機械故障，除自願行為外，飛行員的逃生是指揮機關最優先的選擇。然而，圖一則為我們展示了完全相反的法律制度與殘酷現實：金錢債權高於生命債權。
在大規模人身侵權破產案件中，如果傳統破產法適用於破產程式，金融機關的金融債權，1勞動者的勞動債權和國家的稅收債權等債權，2就優先於人身侵權債權，即健康和生命債權而受償，破產法如此創造了金錢高於生命的法律救濟制度。出現如此嚴重的制度問題，其根本原因何在?單單從表象上分析，這是由於破產法的債權分配製度取代了侵權法的完全損害賠償制度所造成的結果。從法律的邏輯上分析，破產法的債權分配製度和侵權法的完全損害賠償制度二者之中必然有一種制度是錯誤的，是必須捨棄的，否則就無法解釋和解決破產程式中這種財“物重於生命、金錢債權優先於生命債權”的法律現象。然而，如果前提錯誤，邏輯推論的結果就是不可信賴的。經驗和歷史證明，侵權法制度和破產法制度在近代和現代的社會及經濟發展中起到了重大的秩序維護和進步推動作用，二者都是不可偏廢的。
那么，問題到底產生於何種原因?是否產生於將傳統破產法適用於現代工業社會所特有的大規模人身侵權破產案件這一前提條件?從結論而言，如果將傳統破產法適用於大規模人身侵權破產案件，就必然造成破產企業的資本債務與人身侵權債務的混同，這種“混同”正是造成“金錢債權優先於生命債權”的根本原因，而這種“混同”本身則源自於傳統破產法和侵權法的功能結構：對於侵權損害，除“恢復原狀”的救濟方法之外，所能依靠的就只能是將債務人的侵權責任轉化為金錢債務責任，即轉化為損害賠償責任，而人身損害侵權是很難依賴於原狀回復的。與侵權法相比，在破產法上，人身侵權責任的金錢轉化是唯一的救濟方法，債務人的任何人身侵權責任必須轉化為受害人的破產債權。
由於歷史的局限，破產法是以商人的債權回收為基本目的的債權回收法。破產法以契約自由原則為根據，規定了不同商業債權的回收序位；以債權回收序位為標準，將破產債權分類為擔保債權和無擔保債權兩類。於是，破產債權的分類和破產債權回收序位秩序就構成了傳統破產法的核心內容。由此，我們發現，如果將大規模人身侵權損害賠償責任轉化為金錢債權，並將其歸入普通的無擔保債權之中，其結果必然是導致“金錢債權優先於生命債權”的法律現象。簡而言之，傳統破產法不能機械地適用於大規模人身侵杖破產案件，否則即造成“物貴人賤”的反道德、反法律和反社會現象。
但是，破產法是為解決企業破產問題而制定的，而且也具有能夠公平、效率地解決大規模人身侵權受害人救濟的結構性優勢。例如，傳統破產法具有全國性的統一管轄權制度，既能防止地區之間為爭奪破產財產目的的訴訟競爭，也能防止原告先勝先得、後勝不得的不公平現象，而且還能矯正債務人的破產財產轉移行為：3破產法所規定的“債務人破產重整程式”，能夠最大限度保持破產財產的價值，既有利於實現對人身侵權受害人的救濟，也有利於減輕由於企業破產和大規模人身侵權而對社會整體福利造成的損害。
本文的觀點是：大規模人身侵權破產案件的發生是一種不可避免的社會現象，我國也不可能件件採用“官企共濟”的方式，主要依靠全民成本解決大規模人身侵權受害人的救濟問題，而應逐漸通過適用《企業破產法》處理大規模人身侵權破產案件，救濟大規模人身侵權受害人。經濟法的宗旨在於調控和規制政府和企業行為，促進經濟與社會的良性運行和協調發展。為此，在大規模人身侵權破產案件中，《企業破產法》應當成為人身侵權受害人獲得法律救濟的最後保障，既要救濟潛在的受害人，還要從整體上最優先救濟人身侵權受害人，賦予人身侵權債權人超級優先權，優先於其他一切破產債權人，從而避免產生“物貴人賤”的反道德、反法律和反社會現象。為此，我們應當對《企業破產法》進行圖2所示的改造，使傳統破產法升級為現代破產法，既能滿足商業債權的救濟需要，也能滿足生命債權的救濟需要，實現現代工業社會環境下的破產法轉型。
[圖2：現代破產法之下的人身侵權債權救濟]
〓
圖2所示的破產法是現代破產法，它符合經濟法的最基本原則——公平和效率原則，不僅反映社會的基本需要，而且，在現代法學和經濟學的基本原理上具有足夠的理論支撐；正義和公平是法律的基本精神；收益和成本是經濟的根本所在。具體而言，圖2所示的現代破產法符合侵權法的完全損害賠償原則和經濟活動的成本支付原則，而且在社會制度的完善上符合帕累托最優原則。
以上兩個圖示反映了本文的核心內容與寫作思路，據此，本文由四章構成，從問題的產生，到問題的分析與論證，再到問題解決方案的提出，採取層次遞進的寫作方法，沿著主線自然而成。
第一章主要是對大規模人身侵權的特點進行分析，指出，在解決大規模人身侵權債權救濟問題上，傳統破產法既具有固有的結構性優勢，也存在固有的制度障礙：債務性質無區分的強制債權轉換和分類。我國的《企業破產法》屬於傳統破產法：它將企業的人身侵權責任轉化為金錢債權，並將其歸入普通的無擔保債權之中，而且不但排除了對人身侵權債權人的最優先救濟，還排除了對人身侵權潛在受害人的救濟。
第二章從大規模人身侵權受害人的人權保障、侵權企業的破產重整需要以及破產法的宗旨三個方面，結合美國的司法和立法實踐，指出了人身侵權潛在受害人作為破產債權人而獲得充分有效救濟的必要性，救濟人身侵權潛在受害人，既能滿足大規模人身侵權潛在受害人的救濟需要，也能為企業破產重整獲得成功提供重要保障，從而平等地保護債權人與債務人的權利，有助於減少對社會整體福利的損害。
第三章是本文的核心。本文力圖避免通過法律範疇的抽象討論而單純主張人身侵權債權的超級優先權，而是從法學和經濟學的視角，從法人人格理論，從企業的資本結構，對企業的性質進行分析，達到這一結論。關於企業性質，傳統民法和公司法基本上是從將企業作為一個責任承擔的主體，即民事責任主體的視角，探討企業的法人性質或合夥性質。企業的性質，無論是法學，還是在經濟學，不同的研究視角必然產生不同的結論。例如，科斯從研究企業一體化(壟斷)的視角研究企業，從而發現了交易成本的存在，得出了企業是一種價格機制的結論。自從科斯的《企業的性質》誕生之後，經濟學界側重從交易成本的角度探討企業的性質，企業是一種價格機制的觀點逐漸成為一種共識。關於從資本的視角分析企業的性質，在現代西方經濟學中，主要是從企業財務的角度而進行的，目的在於研究企業收益與成本問題。
本文從研究資本責任的目的出發，從企業資本構成的視角探討企業的性質。企業的結構可以分為資本結構與生產結構，兩種結構既有區別又有聯繫。資本結構是指企業的權益資本與債務資本的構成，而生產結構則是指企業的邊界。本章著重從經濟學的視角，對企業的資本結構進行考察，得出企業是一種資本組合、是各類投資者的利益共同體的企業性質認識。本章通過資本組合的企業性質的分析，區分了破產法上的破產債權與侵權企業的人身侵權賠償責任的性質。本文認為，企業是各種資本的組合，當企業破產時，各種資本所形成的債權源自法律、尤其是破產法的規定，在法律意義上屬於債權人對破產企業所擁有的商業債權，木質上屬於各種資本供應者在共同獲利的過程中而進行的、並為傳統破產法所認可的資本回收交易安排。無論是擔保債權人、無擔保債權人，還是債務人，破產債權分配製度是各種資本供應者之間所形成或達成的資本交易安排。這種資本交易安排基於非破產法律而存在，為傳統破產法所確認。而人身侵權債權則是侵權企業的賠償責任為傳統破產法所強制轉換的結果，本來並不屬於破產債權的範疇，並且缺乏法學和經濟學的理論支撐。在經濟學上，商業債權屬於侵權企業(各類資本供應者)的資本範疇，是資本在盈利過程中的風險體現；而人身侵權債權則屬於資本在盈利過程中所生產的外部性，必須由資本本身來承擔，屬於侵權企業的生產成本範疇；在法學上，商業債權屬於債權人的契約權利範疇，人身侵權債權屬於侵權企業的法定義務範疇。傳統破產法屬於商人法，它所關注的是破產財產價值的最大化和破產財產的分配。如果將傳統破產法的破產債權分類和破產財產分配機制機械地適用於大規模人身侵權案件，必然導致上述不同基本範疇的混同，在理論上，既違反法學原理，同時也違反經濟學原理；在實際效果上，勢必導致侵權受害者為侵權人承擔侵權成本的逆反效果。
在如上分析的前提下，本文認為，在大規模人身侵權破產案件中，《企業破產法》應當承接侵權法的功能，遵循侵權法的完全賠償原則，建立大規模人身侵權債權超級優先權制度，使大規模人身侵權債權優先於任何其他債權而受償；而且，當破產財產不足以償付大規模人身侵權債權時，侵權企業的主要資本供應者，如控股股東、控制債權人以及高級管理人員，應對大規模人身侵權受害人承擔連帶賠償責任。在本章的最後部分，作為理論上的統括，本章從經濟法的宗旨和經濟法外部性正反兩個方面對對規模人身侵權債權的破產法救濟制度進行了經濟法分析，並藉此對經濟法及經濟法學的建設提出了一些建設性的學術觀點，例如經濟法也存在外部性問題，市場規製法的縱橫構造問題等等。
第四章是本文的終章，作為制度篇，提出在《企業破產法》中加入“大規模人身侵權破產案件的特別規定”一章，並通過所選擇的十個典型問題的討論和相應的建議方案，構築《企業破產法》上大規模人身侵權債權救濟的基本制度框架，使《企業破產法》既能夠保持基本內容與結構的穩定性，也能夠應對大規模人身侵權破產案件，充分並有效地救濟大規模人身侵權受害人，使《企業破產法》從傳統破產法升級為現代破產法，既能夠解決商業債權的分配問題，也能夠有效解決大規模人身侵權債權的救濟問題。除制度建設的提案之外，本章亦根據論文的結構安排和必要性原則，在相關理論方面做了必要的探討和展開，例如，先侵權後破產原則，市場份額責任原則等等，儘量彌補本體論中存在的相應不足，保證論文在整體結構和內容上的基本暢通與和諧統一。
關鍵字：大規模人身侵權 人身侵權將來債權 資本組合 破產債權分類 超級優先權制度
1參見《企業破產法》第109條。
2參見《企業破產法》第113條第1款、第2款；11 U.S.C.§506，§507.
3參見《企業破產法》第四章關於撤銷權和取回權等規定。
在《企業破產法》實施兩年後的2008年，我國震驚世界的含三聚氰胺奶粉大規模人身侵權事件被暴露於世。據當時的統計，受害者兒童總數達三十餘萬人。由於各地法院拒絕受理含三聚氰胺奶粉受害者提起的人身侵權訴訟，在全國並未出現大規模的人身侵權訴訟現象。然而，大規模人身侵權在中國乃至全世界，已是不可否認的事實。全國範圍的受害兒童救濟方案，最終通過政府和侵權企業共濟的方式得以確定，從而迴避了連鎖性大規模人身侵權破產案件的發生。官企共濟救濟方式及其實施的結果是，全民為企業侵權責任承擔主要侵權成本，除極個別的侵權企業破產外，其他的侵權企業都躲避了大規模人身侵權破產的厄運。構想，如果我國當時沒有採取官企共濟的救助方式，數十家乳製品侵權企業因大規模人身侵權賠償責任而進入破產程式，我國的《企業破產法》是否能夠應對這樣的大規模人身侵權破產案件，對數十萬因食用含三聚氰胺奶粉而遭受人身傷害的兒童的提供充分有效的最優先救濟?類似於三聚氰胺奶粉大規模人身侵權案件的現象還有很多，例如，在我國，因江河污染以及特種行業污染所造成的癌症村就有200多個；與石綿生產和石綿製品銷售有關的從業人員就有千萬之眾，石綿製品的使用者和接觸者就更不計其數了。也有一些受害人為人身侵權提起訴訟，但是絕大多數訴訟案件因受害人存在特定因果關係的舉證困難而敗訴。我國的大規模人身侵權現象已經十分普遍，只是未受到現有法律制度的認可而已，在客觀效果上，現有法律制度在一定程度上已經成為大規模人身侵權企業的制度保護傘。
大規模侵權，既包括財產侵權也包括人身侵權，在實踐中最常發生並最困擾法院的是大規模人身侵權案件。本文所研究的是大規模人身侵權債權的破產法救濟救濟制度。大規模人身侵權的特點是，就原告而言，不僅受害者人數眾多，而且還存在眾多的潛在受害人，訴訟分散，規模龐大；在被告方面，也存在複數被告的情況，甚至還存在潛在的被告，而且被告還可能面臨未來不確定的人身損害賠償訴訟。面臨大規模人身侵權賠償責任，侵權企業有時會選擇申請破產清算或破產重整程式，以解決現實的或未來的人身侵權賠償責任。因此，當大規模人身侵權責任導致侵權企業申請破產時，包括潛在受害人在內的所有人身侵權受害人的債權救濟，是大規模人身侵權破產案件破產程式中最重要的問題。考察我國現行的《企業破產法》，就結論而言，如圖1所示，它既不救濟人身侵權潛在受害人，也不優先救濟人身侵權受害人。
[圖1：傳統破產法之下的人身侵權救濟]
〓
在文明社會，無論財產的價值有多大，事故救濟的首要原則、方針和具體措施，都毫無例外地表現為：救助生命高於一切!例如，我國的殲10戰鬥機價值過億元，如果在飛行中一旦出現嚴重機械故障，除自願行為外，飛行員的逃生是指揮機關最優先的選擇。然而，圖一則為我們展示了完全相反的法律制度與殘酷現實：金錢債權高於生命債權。
在大規模人身侵權破產案件中，如果傳統破產法適用於破產程式，金融機關的金融債權，1勞動者的勞動債權和國家的稅收債權等債權，2就優先於人身侵權債權，即健康和生命債權而受償，破產法如此創造了金錢高於生命的法律救濟制度。出現如此嚴重的制度問題，其根本原因何在?單單從表象上分析，這是由於破產法的債權分配製度取代了侵權法的完全損害賠償制度所造成的結果。從法律的邏輯上分析，破產法的債權分配製度和侵權法的完全損害賠償制度二者之中必然有一種制度是錯誤的，是必須捨棄的，否則就無法解釋和解決破產程式中這種財“物重於生命、金錢債權優先於生命債權”的法律現象。然而，如果前提錯誤，邏輯推論的結果就是不可信賴的。經驗和歷史證明，侵權法制度和破產法制度在近代和現代的社會及經濟發展中起到了重大的秩序維護和進步推動作用，二者都是不可偏廢的。
那么，問題到底產生於何種原因?是否產生於將傳統破產法適用於現代工業社會所特有的大規模人身侵權破產案件這一前提條件?從結論而言，如果將傳統破產法適用於大規模人身侵權破產案件，就必然造成破產企業的資本債務與人身侵權債務的混同，這種“混同”正是造成“金錢債權優先於生命債權”的根本原因，而這種“混同”本身則源自於傳統破產法和侵權法的功能結構：對於侵權損害，除“恢復原狀”的救濟方法之外，所能依靠的就只能是將債務人的侵權責任轉化為金錢債務責任，即轉化為損害賠償責任，而人身損害侵權是很難依賴於原狀回復的。與侵權法相比，在破產法上，人身侵權責任的金錢轉化是唯一的救濟方法，債務人的任何人身侵權責任必須轉化為受害人的破產債權。
由於歷史的局限，破產法是以商人的債權回收為基本目的的債權回收法。破產法以契約自由原則為根據，規定了不同商業債權的回收序位；以債權回收序位為標準，將破產債權分類為擔保債權和無擔保債權兩類。於是，破產債權的分類和破產債權回收序位秩序就構成了傳統破產法的核心內容。由此，我們發現，如果將大規模人身侵權損害賠償責任轉化為金錢債權，並將其歸入普通的無擔保債權之中，其結果必然是導致“金錢債權優先於生命債權”的法律現象。簡而言之，傳統破產法不能機械地適用於大規模人身侵杖破產案件，否則即造成“物貴人賤”的反道德、反法律和反社會現象。
但是，破產法是為解決企業破產問題而制定的，而且也具有能夠公平、效率地解決大規模人身侵權受害人救濟的結構性優勢。例如，傳統破產法具有全國性的統一管轄權制度，既能防止地區之間為爭奪破產財產目的的訴訟競爭，也能防止原告先勝先得、後勝不得的不公平現象，而且還能矯正債務人的破產財產轉移行為：3破產法所規定的“債務人破產重整程式”，能夠最大限度保持破產財產的價值，既有利於實現對人身侵權受害人的救濟，也有利於減輕由於企業破產和大規模人身侵權而對社會整體福利造成的損害。
本文的觀點是：大規模人身侵權破產案件的發生是一種不可避免的社會現象，我國也不可能件件採用“官企共濟”的方式，主要依靠全民成本解決大規模人身侵權受害人的救濟問題，而應逐漸通過適用《企業破產法》處理大規模人身侵權破產案件，救濟大規模人身侵權受害人。經濟法的宗旨在於調控和規制政府和企業行為，促進經濟與社會的良性運行和協調發展。為此，在大規模人身侵權破產案件中，《企業破產法》應當成為人身侵權受害人獲得法律救濟的最後保障，既要救濟潛在的受害人，還要從整體上最優先救濟人身侵權受害人，賦予人身侵權債權人超級優先權，優先於其他一切破產債權人，從而避免產生“物貴人賤”的反道德、反法律和反社會現象。為此，我們應當對《企業破產法》進行圖2所示的改造，使傳統破產法升級為現代破產法，既能滿足商業債權的救濟需要，也能滿足生命債權的救濟需要，實現現代工業社會環境下的破產法轉型。
[圖2：現代破產法之下的人身侵權債權救濟]
〓
圖2所示的破產法是現代破產法，它符合經濟法的最基本原則——公平和效率原則，不僅反映社會的基本需要，而且，在現代法學和經濟學的基本原理上具有足夠的理論支撐；正義和公平是法律的基本精神；收益和成本是經濟的根本所在。具體而言，圖2所示的現代破產法符合侵權法的完全損害賠償原則和經濟活動的成本支付原則，而且在社會制度的完善上符合帕累托最優原則。
以上兩個圖示反映了本文的核心內容與寫作思路，據此，本文由四章構成，從問題的產生，到問題的分析與論證，再到問題解決方案的提出，採取層次遞進的寫作方法，沿著主線自然而成。
第一章主要是對大規模人身侵權的特點進行分析，指出，在解決大規模人身侵權債權救濟問題上，傳統破產法既具有固有的結構性優勢，也存在固有的制度障礙：債務性質無區分的強制債權轉換和分類。我國的《企業破產法》屬於傳統破產法：它將企業的人身侵權責任轉化為金錢債權，並將其歸入普通的無擔保債權之中，而且不但排除了對人身侵權債權人的最優先救濟，還排除了對人身侵權潛在受害人的救濟。
第二章從大規模人身侵權受害人的人權保障、侵權企業的破產重整需要以及破產法的宗旨三個方面，結合美國的司法和立法實踐，指出了人身侵權潛在受害人作為破產債權人而獲得充分有效救濟的必要性，救濟人身侵權潛在受害人，既能滿足大規模人身侵權潛在受害人的救濟需要，也能為企業破產重整獲得成功提供重要保障，從而平等地保護債權人與債務人的權利，有助於減少對社會整體福利的損害。
第三章是本文的核心。本文力圖避免通過法律範疇的抽象討論而單純主張人身侵權債權的超級優先權，而是從法學和經濟學的視角，從法人人格理論，從企業的資本結構，對企業的性質進行分析，達到這一結論。關於企業性質，傳統民法和公司法基本上是從將企業作為一個責任承擔的主體，即民事責任主體的視角，探討企業的法人性質或合夥性質。企業的性質，無論是法學，還是在經濟學，不同的研究視角必然產生不同的結論。例如，科斯從研究企業一體化(壟斷)的視角研究企業，從而發現了交易成本的存在，得出了企業是一種價格機制的結論。自從科斯的《企業的性質》誕生之後，經濟學界側重從交易成本的角度探討企業的性質，企業是一種價格機制的觀點逐漸成為一種共識。關於從資本的視角分析企業的性質，在現代西方經濟學中，主要是從企業財務的角度而進行的，目的在於研究企業收益與成本問題。
本文從研究資本責任的目的出發，從企業資本構成的視角探討企業的性質。企業的結構可以分為資本結構與生產結構，兩種結構既有區別又有聯繫。資本結構是指企業的權益資本與債務資本的構成，而生產結構則是指企業的邊界。本章著重從經濟學的視角，對企業的資本結構進行考察，得出企業是一種資本組合、是各類投資者的利益共同體的企業性質認識。本章通過資本組合的企業性質的分析，區分了破產法上的破產債權與侵權企業的人身侵權賠償責任的性質。本文認為，企業是各種資本的組合，當企業破產時，各種資本所形成的債權源自法律、尤其是破產法的規定，在法律意義上屬於債權人對破產企業所擁有的商業債權，木質上屬於各種資本供應者在共同獲利的過程中而進行的、並為傳統破產法所認可的資本回收交易安排。無論是擔保債權人、無擔保債權人，還是債務人，破產債權分配製度是各種資本供應者之間所形成或達成的資本交易安排。這種資本交易安排基於非破產法律而存在，為傳統破產法所確認。而人身侵權債權則是侵權企業的賠償責任為傳統破產法所強制轉換的結果，本來並不屬於破產債權的範疇，並且缺乏法學和經濟學的理論支撐。在經濟學上，商業債權屬於侵權企業(各類資本供應者)的資本範疇，是資本在盈利過程中的風險體現；而人身侵權債權則屬於資本在盈利過程中所生產的外部性，必須由資本本身來承擔，屬於侵權企業的生產成本範疇；在法學上，商業債權屬於債權人的契約權利範疇，人身侵權債權屬於侵權企業的法定義務範疇。傳統破產法屬於商人法，它所關注的是破產財產價值的最大化和破產財產的分配。如果將傳統破產法的破產債權分類和破產財產分配機制機械地適用於大規模人身侵權案件，必然導致上述不同基本範疇的混同，在理論上，既違反法學原理，同時也違反經濟學原理；在實際效果上，勢必導致侵權受害者為侵權人承擔侵權成本的逆反效果。
在如上分析的前提下，本文認為，在大規模人身侵權破產案件中，《企業破產法》應當承接侵權法的功能，遵循侵權法的完全賠償原則，建立大規模人身侵權債權超級優先權制度，使大規模人身侵權債權優先於任何其他債權而受償；而且，當破產財產不足以償付大規模人身侵權債權時，侵權企業的主要資本供應者，如控股股東、控制債權人以及高級管理人員，應對大規模人身侵權受害人承擔連帶賠償責任。在本章的最後部分，作為理論上的統括，本章從經濟法的宗旨和經濟法外部性正反兩個方面對對規模人身侵權債權的破產法救濟制度進行了經濟法分析，並藉此對經濟法及經濟法學的建設提出了一些建設性的學術觀點，例如經濟法也存在外部性問題，市場規製法的縱橫構造問題等等。
第四章是本文的終章，作為制度篇，提出在《企業破產法》中加入“大規模人身侵權破產案件的特別規定”一章，並通過所選擇的十個典型問題的討論和相應的建議方案，構築《企業破產法》上大規模人身侵權債權救濟的基本制度框架，使《企業破產法》既能夠保持基本內容與結構的穩定性，也能夠應對大規模人身侵權破產案件，充分並有效地救濟大規模人身侵權受害人，使《企業破產法》從傳統破產法升級為現代破產法，既能夠解決商業債權的分配問題，也能夠有效解決大規模人身侵權債權的救濟問題。除制度建設的提案之外，本章亦根據論文的結構安排和必要性原則，在相關理論方面做了必要的探討和展開，例如，先侵權後破產原則，市場份額責任原則等等，儘量彌補本體論中存在的相應不足，保證論文在整體結構和內容上的基本暢通與和諧統一。
關鍵字：大規模人身侵權 人身侵權將來債權 資本組合 破產債權分類 超級優先權制度
1參見《企業破產法》第109條。
2參見《企業破產法》第113條第1款、第2款；11 U.S.C.§506，§507.
3參見《企業破產法》第四章關於撤銷權和取回權等規定。
外文摘要
Law of the People''s Republic of China on Enterprise Bankruptcy was drafted in 1994. was submitted to the Standing Committee of National People''s Congress for the first consideration in June 2004, and adopted at the twenty-third Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People''s Congress on August 27, 2006, tool effect as of June 1, 2007. Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was widely regarded as an important market economic law of China, should note only play a key role in improving cor...>> 詳細
Law of the People''s Republic of China on Enterprise Bankruptcy was drafted in 1994. was submitted to the Standing Committee of National People''s Congress for the first consideration in June 2004, and adopted at the twenty-third Meeting of the Standing Committee of the Tenth National People''s Congress on August 27, 2006, tool effect as of June 1, 2007. Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was widely regarded as an important market economic law of China, should note only play a key role in improving corporate legal system, regulating Withdrawal Mechanism of enterprises Insurance in China, but also appropriating to the meet of China the international economic exchanges after her accession to the WTO, promoting the establishment of legal mechanism and a market environment with full credit, efficiency, security, discouraging foreign investment, especially the foreign financial capital which have big concerns to China. Expectations without exception concentrated in bankruptcy law were concentrated on the real economic needs and expectations. Inspecting from the historical background of the enactment of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of, Mass personal tort victim relief has never entered into the vision of legislators.
Two years later after the implement of Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, China shocked the world with the scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder by which about more than three hundred thousand children large-scale were exposed, according to the statistics at that time. All of the courts rejected the lawsuit filed by victims concerning the scandal, as a result of the courts'' rejection, no mass personal tort litigation happened in China. However, the existences of mass personal injury torts were undeniable fact in both China and the world. Child victims relief programs nationwide, ultimately was determined by the central Government in Masonic way by government and tort enterprises, thus avoiding a chain of large-scale bankruptcy cases of mass torts. The result of Masonic relief, the whole people to bear the main costs for the corporate tort liability, most of the tort enterprises avoided the misfortune of bankruptcy by mass torts. It was envisaged that if China did not take the official Masonic relief, a large number of tort enterprises might be fallen into bankruptcy proceedings due to the personal tort liability and, we want to know whether the China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was able to respond to such mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, granted super-priority to the exposed children in bankruptcy proceeding? Similar to those scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder cases, so many mass torts happened in china, for example, there are more than 200 cancer villages in China caused by rivers pollution, and special industry pollution; There are more than ten millions staffs in the field of the production and trade of asbestos, The users of asbestos production in China should be more numerous. Many of the victims sued for losing but failed due to difficulties of proof in a particular causal relationship. Mass personal torts are very common, but are still not admitted by the existing legal system, which has become a strong umbrella of mass torts enterprises. Mass torts, including both property damage and personal injury, occur most frequently in economic activity of enterprises and courts are most troubled by those mass tort cases. This thesis is the study on personal injury victims'' relief mechanism in mass tort bankruptcy. Mass personal injury tort is characterized by not only the vast numbers of victims, a large number of potential victims, dispersed litigation, large-scale compensation, but also an uncertainty of future actions faced by tortfeasors. Tortfeasors may choose to file for bankruptcy liquidation or reorganization procedures to address personal tort liability. Therefore, when mass tort personal injury liability lead to the tortfeasors filed for bankruptcy, the relief for personal tort victims, potential victims, will become the most important issue in the mass personal injury bankruptcy proceedings. Visits China''s current Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, unparalleled in terms of knot, shown in Figure 1, it neither relieve personal injury of potential victims, nor give superpriority to the personal tort victims.
[Figure 1: The personal tort relief under traditional bankruptcy law:]
[Figure 1]
〓
Value of the property in a civilized society, no matter how big they have, the first principles of accident relief, policy and specific measures, are the save of lives above all else! China''s F-10 fighter, for example, though its value may be more than RMB100bn, in the event of mechanical failure, pilot''s escape is the preferred choice. However, Figure 1, telling us exactly and clearly the opposite legal system: monetary claims take precedence over the calims of life.
In mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, if the traditional bankruptcy law is applicable to bankruptcy proceedings, the Financial claims of financial institutions, labor claims and national claims will take precedence over personal injury tort claims, therefore, traditional bankruptcy law such created a relief mechanism in which the monetary claim is higher than the claim of life. What is wrong with the traditional bankruptcy law? From a Mere analysis, we could find that distribution system of traditional bankruptcy law has replaced the full compensation system of tort law. From the logic of law, either bankruptcy law claims distribution system or full compensation system of tort law must be a system error, and must be discarded, otherwise we can not explain the legal phenomena, why the property claim is more important than life claim, monetary claims take precedence over life claims. However, if the premise of wrong, the result of a logic consequence should not be reliable. Experience and history has proven that the system of tort law and insolvency law regimes has played a key role in promoting the maintenance of order and progress of society in modern and contemporary social and economic development, the two can be neglected.
Question is, then, what is the reason? Did It Generated in the application of traditional bankruptcy law to the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases? As far as the conclusions, the traditional bankruptcy law, if as an applicable law to mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, will inevitably lead to a confusion of capital debt and personal injury debt of bankrupt enterprises. This confusion is the fundamental reason by which lead the monetary claims prior to life claim. Such a confusion is caused by the basic nature of the traditional bankruptcy law and tort law: In addition to the "restitution" remedy, the remedy for personal injury can rely on is only the monetary conversion from liability of the debtor, such conversion of any liability by bankruptcy law, make the victim as a claimant in bankruptcy proceeding for his injury.
Due to the limitations of history, bankruptcy law is taken as a Recovery Act for the basic purpose of merchant credit, based on the principle of freedom of contract which provides for the recovery order bits of different commercial creditors. In traditional bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy claims are classified as two types of secured claims and unsecured claims. Bankruptcy claims classification and bankruptcy debt recovery sequence order constitute the core framework of the traditional bankruptcy law. The liability for Mass Personal Injury is transformed into a common unsecured claims by traditional bankruptcy law, and this would inevitably produce a legal phenomena that monetary claims take precedence over the life claims. In short, the traditional bankruptcy law cannot mechanically apply to mass personal tort bankruptcy cases, otherwise, will inevitably lead to a legal result of "monetary claim is prior to life claim" of anti-morality, anti-law and anti-society.
Bankruptcy law, however, is developed to solve the problem of corporate bankruptcies, but also has its structural advantages to in relief of mass personal injury victims with fair and efficient solution, for example, its nationwide uniform system of jurisdiction could both prevent the legal localism from competition for the purpose of property, but also to prevent unfairness to the plaintiff to win the first-come, and also correct the debtor''s illegal behaviors; Also, the debtor''s bankruptcy reorganization proceedings could maximum the value of the estate, both conducive to the realization of personal tort victim''s relief, but also will help reduce the damage to the overall welfare of society.
The view of this article is that mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, are inevitable social phenomenon, using the Freemasonry Way of official and tortfeasors is impossible to all of the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases in china, we should gradually handle the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases through bankruptcy law, relief the personal tort victims. The ultimate purpose of economic law is the regulation to both government and enterprises, market behaviors for the aim of promoting a benign operation of economic and social. To this end, our "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" should be the last protection of personal tort victims to obtain legal relief, it is necessary to relief the potential victim, and grand all personal victims super-priority, taking precedence over all other bankruptcy creditors, in order to avoid such a phenomenon of things elegant and life cheap, it is anti-ethic, and the law and anti-social phenomenon, but just produced by the application of traditional bankruptcy law to mass personal injury torts. To this end, we should update our Enterprise Bankruptcy Law to a modern bankruptcy law. Figure 2 shows the transformation of traditional bankruptcy law to upgrade, in order to meet the needs of relief of the commercial creditors, or the relief of life claims.
[Figure 2: Personal tort claims relief under modern bankruptcy law]
[Figure 2]
〓
Figure 2 shows what a modern bankruptcy law should be, it is consistent with the most basic principles of economic law - equity and efficiency principles, not only reflect the basic needs of society, but has sufficient theoretical support from and by the basic principles of law and economics: justice and fairness, the basic spirit of law; benefits and costs, fundamental factors of economy. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, modern bankruptcy law is in line with the full compensation principle of tort law and cost principle of economic activity, in line with the Pareto optimality principle in the improvement of social system.
These two icons reflect the core content and writing ideas of this thesis, accordingly, this thesis consist of four chapters, written progressively at each level along the main line from the generation of the problem to the analysis, argument, problem-solving program, and finally, to a Natural conclusions. In chapter I, I analyzed the characteristics of mass personal injury tort, pointing out that, in solving the relief of mass personal injury claims, the traditional bankruptcy law has both the inherent structural advantages and institutional barriers: debts casting and classifications are required by mandatory rules without any distinction of nature of debts. China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, although adopted in 2008, still belongs to the traditional bankruptcy law: it classifies the personal injury claims as ordinary unsecured claims, not only exclude potential victims from bankruptcy proceeding, but also grand no priority to personal injury claimants.
In chapter II, for the purpose of protection of both mass injury claimants'' human rights and successful reorganization of debtor, In particular, I argued that it is necessary to take the potential victims as creditors in bankruptcy proceeding and give relief to the potential victims, based on the principles of and aims of bankruptcy law, and combined with the judicial and legislative practices in the United States. I pointed out that the relief for personal injury potential victims also benefit to the protection of debtor''s re-organization, and it is In line with the spirit of equal protection of the rights of the creditor and the debtor of bankruptcy law, help reducing harm to the welfare of society as a whole.
Chapter III is the core of this paper. This paper tries to avoid abstract discussion of the legal aspects of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims, the establishment of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims is basically derived from the analysis of both law and economics, especially from the theories of legal personality, theories of the corporate capital structure, theories of the nature of enterprise. About the nature of enterprise, the traditional civil law and company law mainly focused on the legal personality of an enterprise, took it as an entity to bear civil liability, no matter a corporate or a partnership. The nature of the enterprise, regardless of law, in economics, is different from law. Different perspective will inevitably produce different conclusions. For example, Coase research enterprise from the perspective of the study on enterprise integration (monopoly), he found the existence of transaction costs, came to the conclusion that the enterprise was a price mechanism. Since Kos "nature of the form" (1937), Western economists have focused to explore the nature of the business from the perspective of transaction costs, enterprise as a price mechanism has gradually become a consensus. As to the studying on the nature of enterprise from the perspective of capital, the main aims has been for the analysis of corporate earnings and cost issues.
The purpose of analysis of the nature of enterprise in my thesis is to decide the capital responsibility by analyzing capital structure of enterprise. The enterprise structure can be divided into two structures, capital structure and production structure. These two structures are different but related. The capital structure consists of equity capitals and debt capitals. The structure of production refers to the boundaries of the enterprise. This chapter focuses, from an economic perspective, on the capital structure of enterprise, comes to the conclusion that enterprise is a capital portfolio, a community of interests of the various types of investors. In this chapter, through the analysis of the nature of capital portfolio companies, I try to make the distinction between the nature of liability of mass injury personal claims and the commercial debts. I argue that the enterprise is a combination of capital, the claims of various types of capitalists, who are the capital providers to the bankrupt enterprise and have business interest in the in the process of production and trade, should be classified as commercial credits which recognized as the capital recovery arrangements by law, especially bankruptcy law, whether the secured credits, unsecured credits. This capital transaction arrangements exist based on the non-bankruptcy law, recognized and acknowledged the traditional bankruptcy law. Liabilities for personal injury was transferred into commom unsecured credit by traditional bankruptcy law, but originally it did not belong to the scope of the commercial claims against the bankrupt, this transmission was lacking of theoretical support of the law and economics. In economics, commercial credits belongs to the areas of enterprise capital, should bear the risk of capital in the earnings process; personal injury tort claims, as externality, belong to the cost of production in the earnings process, must be borne by the capitals. Commercial claims belong to the areas of creditors'' contractual rights in law, personal injury debt is the statutory obligations of the scope of enterprises. Traditional bankruptcy law is a merchant law, its core is on the distribution of property by maximizing the value of the estate. If the claims classification of the traditional bankruptcy law was mechanically applicable to mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, this will inevitably lead to the capitals and cost to be confused, in theory, and also an contravention of the principle of law, and a violation to the principles of economics; in effect will inevitably lead to the victims to bear the tort costs for tortfeasors.
Under the premise of the above analysis, this paper argues that the "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" shall undertake the functions of tort law and follow the principle of full compensation of tort law in mass personal injury bankruptcy cases. For this purpose, the establishment of super-priority system for relief of personal injury claimants should be necessary to bankruptcy law, under this super-priority personal injury claimants'' claims should take precedence over any other creditors. Moreover, when the bankruptcy property is insufficient to compensate the personal injury claimants, the enterprise capital providers, such as controlling shareholder, controlling creditors, and senior managers should be jointly and severally liable to the victims. As a theoretical omnibus in the last part of this chapter, this chapter carried out an economic law analysis, by both positive and negative, to the relief system of mass injury tort claimants in bankruptcy from both respective of the purpose of economic law and economic law externalities. And also tried to make a constructive academic point of view, such as there are also external issues in economic law, as well as the structural problems exist in market regulation law.
Chapter IV is the final part of this thesis, I made a suggestion that a special chapter "Special Provisions for Mass Personal Injury Tort Bankruptcy" should be inserted in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. I selected 10 typical problems to try to build a basic legal framework for relief of mass personal injury claimants in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, in order to make "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law," not only be able to maintain the stability of the basic content and structure, but also be able to cope with mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, to give personal injury victims full and effective relief. By this way, the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law should be upgraded to a modern bankruptcy law, have functions both to solve the problem of distribution of commercial credits, also effectively solve the problem of mass personal injury tort claims relief. In addition to institution building proposal, this chapter also explored and expanded relevant theories, such as market share liability theory and theory of infringement before bankruptcy, to compensate for ontology insufficient in order to ensure this papers in the overall structure and content of the smooth flow of harmony and unity.
My writing goal was concise, compelling, and easy to read and understand, and no longer than the thesis topic. I would like to thank Professor Liu Ruifu, Li Ming, Zhang Shouwen, Liu Jianwen, Gan Peizhong, Pan Jianfeng, Jiang Daxing, Piao Wendan and all other professors for helpful comments on my previous draft of this thesis. Useful comments were also gathered in day-to-day studying. I thank all of the authors whose books or articles gave me meaningful ideas.
Keywords: Mass Personal Injury Tort, Future Claim of Personal Injury, Capital Portfolio, Classification of Claims, super-priority system.
Two years later after the implement of Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, China shocked the world with the scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder by which about more than three hundred thousand children large-scale were exposed, according to the statistics at that time. All of the courts rejected the lawsuit filed by victims concerning the scandal, as a result of the courts'' rejection, no mass personal tort litigation happened in China. However, the existences of mass personal injury torts were undeniable fact in both China and the world. Child victims relief programs nationwide, ultimately was determined by the central Government in Masonic way by government and tort enterprises, thus avoiding a chain of large-scale bankruptcy cases of mass torts. The result of Masonic relief, the whole people to bear the main costs for the corporate tort liability, most of the tort enterprises avoided the misfortune of bankruptcy by mass torts. It was envisaged that if China did not take the official Masonic relief, a large number of tort enterprises might be fallen into bankruptcy proceedings due to the personal tort liability and, we want to know whether the China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law was able to respond to such mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, granted super-priority to the exposed children in bankruptcy proceeding? Similar to those scandal of Melamine-tainted milk powder cases, so many mass torts happened in china, for example, there are more than 200 cancer villages in China caused by rivers pollution, and special industry pollution; There are more than ten millions staffs in the field of the production and trade of asbestos, The users of asbestos production in China should be more numerous. Many of the victims sued for losing but failed due to difficulties of proof in a particular causal relationship. Mass personal torts are very common, but are still not admitted by the existing legal system, which has become a strong umbrella of mass torts enterprises. Mass torts, including both property damage and personal injury, occur most frequently in economic activity of enterprises and courts are most troubled by those mass tort cases. This thesis is the study on personal injury victims'' relief mechanism in mass tort bankruptcy. Mass personal injury tort is characterized by not only the vast numbers of victims, a large number of potential victims, dispersed litigation, large-scale compensation, but also an uncertainty of future actions faced by tortfeasors. Tortfeasors may choose to file for bankruptcy liquidation or reorganization procedures to address personal tort liability. Therefore, when mass tort personal injury liability lead to the tortfeasors filed for bankruptcy, the relief for personal tort victims, potential victims, will become the most important issue in the mass personal injury bankruptcy proceedings. Visits China''s current Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, unparalleled in terms of knot, shown in Figure 1, it neither relieve personal injury of potential victims, nor give superpriority to the personal tort victims.
[Figure 1: The personal tort relief under traditional bankruptcy law:]
[Figure 1]
〓
Value of the property in a civilized society, no matter how big they have, the first principles of accident relief, policy and specific measures, are the save of lives above all else! China''s F-10 fighter, for example, though its value may be more than RMB100bn, in the event of mechanical failure, pilot''s escape is the preferred choice. However, Figure 1, telling us exactly and clearly the opposite legal system: monetary claims take precedence over the calims of life.
In mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, if the traditional bankruptcy law is applicable to bankruptcy proceedings, the Financial claims of financial institutions, labor claims and national claims will take precedence over personal injury tort claims, therefore, traditional bankruptcy law such created a relief mechanism in which the monetary claim is higher than the claim of life. What is wrong with the traditional bankruptcy law? From a Mere analysis, we could find that distribution system of traditional bankruptcy law has replaced the full compensation system of tort law. From the logic of law, either bankruptcy law claims distribution system or full compensation system of tort law must be a system error, and must be discarded, otherwise we can not explain the legal phenomena, why the property claim is more important than life claim, monetary claims take precedence over life claims. However, if the premise of wrong, the result of a logic consequence should not be reliable. Experience and history has proven that the system of tort law and insolvency law regimes has played a key role in promoting the maintenance of order and progress of society in modern and contemporary social and economic development, the two can be neglected.
Question is, then, what is the reason? Did It Generated in the application of traditional bankruptcy law to the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases? As far as the conclusions, the traditional bankruptcy law, if as an applicable law to mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, will inevitably lead to a confusion of capital debt and personal injury debt of bankrupt enterprises. This confusion is the fundamental reason by which lead the monetary claims prior to life claim. Such a confusion is caused by the basic nature of the traditional bankruptcy law and tort law: In addition to the "restitution" remedy, the remedy for personal injury can rely on is only the monetary conversion from liability of the debtor, such conversion of any liability by bankruptcy law, make the victim as a claimant in bankruptcy proceeding for his injury.
Due to the limitations of history, bankruptcy law is taken as a Recovery Act for the basic purpose of merchant credit, based on the principle of freedom of contract which provides for the recovery order bits of different commercial creditors. In traditional bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy claims are classified as two types of secured claims and unsecured claims. Bankruptcy claims classification and bankruptcy debt recovery sequence order constitute the core framework of the traditional bankruptcy law. The liability for Mass Personal Injury is transformed into a common unsecured claims by traditional bankruptcy law, and this would inevitably produce a legal phenomena that monetary claims take precedence over the life claims. In short, the traditional bankruptcy law cannot mechanically apply to mass personal tort bankruptcy cases, otherwise, will inevitably lead to a legal result of "monetary claim is prior to life claim" of anti-morality, anti-law and anti-society.
Bankruptcy law, however, is developed to solve the problem of corporate bankruptcies, but also has its structural advantages to in relief of mass personal injury victims with fair and efficient solution, for example, its nationwide uniform system of jurisdiction could both prevent the legal localism from competition for the purpose of property, but also to prevent unfairness to the plaintiff to win the first-come, and also correct the debtor''s illegal behaviors; Also, the debtor''s bankruptcy reorganization proceedings could maximum the value of the estate, both conducive to the realization of personal tort victim''s relief, but also will help reduce the damage to the overall welfare of society.
The view of this article is that mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, are inevitable social phenomenon, using the Freemasonry Way of official and tortfeasors is impossible to all of the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases in china, we should gradually handle the mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases through bankruptcy law, relief the personal tort victims. The ultimate purpose of economic law is the regulation to both government and enterprises, market behaviors for the aim of promoting a benign operation of economic and social. To this end, our "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" should be the last protection of personal tort victims to obtain legal relief, it is necessary to relief the potential victim, and grand all personal victims super-priority, taking precedence over all other bankruptcy creditors, in order to avoid such a phenomenon of things elegant and life cheap, it is anti-ethic, and the law and anti-social phenomenon, but just produced by the application of traditional bankruptcy law to mass personal injury torts. To this end, we should update our Enterprise Bankruptcy Law to a modern bankruptcy law. Figure 2 shows the transformation of traditional bankruptcy law to upgrade, in order to meet the needs of relief of the commercial creditors, or the relief of life claims.
[Figure 2: Personal tort claims relief under modern bankruptcy law]
[Figure 2]
〓
Figure 2 shows what a modern bankruptcy law should be, it is consistent with the most basic principles of economic law - equity and efficiency principles, not only reflect the basic needs of society, but has sufficient theoretical support from and by the basic principles of law and economics: justice and fairness, the basic spirit of law; benefits and costs, fundamental factors of economy. Specifically, as shown in Figure 2, modern bankruptcy law is in line with the full compensation principle of tort law and cost principle of economic activity, in line with the Pareto optimality principle in the improvement of social system.
These two icons reflect the core content and writing ideas of this thesis, accordingly, this thesis consist of four chapters, written progressively at each level along the main line from the generation of the problem to the analysis, argument, problem-solving program, and finally, to a Natural conclusions. In chapter I, I analyzed the characteristics of mass personal injury tort, pointing out that, in solving the relief of mass personal injury claims, the traditional bankruptcy law has both the inherent structural advantages and institutional barriers: debts casting and classifications are required by mandatory rules without any distinction of nature of debts. China''s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, although adopted in 2008, still belongs to the traditional bankruptcy law: it classifies the personal injury claims as ordinary unsecured claims, not only exclude potential victims from bankruptcy proceeding, but also grand no priority to personal injury claimants.
In chapter II, for the purpose of protection of both mass injury claimants'' human rights and successful reorganization of debtor, In particular, I argued that it is necessary to take the potential victims as creditors in bankruptcy proceeding and give relief to the potential victims, based on the principles of and aims of bankruptcy law, and combined with the judicial and legislative practices in the United States. I pointed out that the relief for personal injury potential victims also benefit to the protection of debtor''s re-organization, and it is In line with the spirit of equal protection of the rights of the creditor and the debtor of bankruptcy law, help reducing harm to the welfare of society as a whole.
Chapter III is the core of this paper. This paper tries to avoid abstract discussion of the legal aspects of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims, the establishment of super-priority claim for personal injury tort claims is basically derived from the analysis of both law and economics, especially from the theories of legal personality, theories of the corporate capital structure, theories of the nature of enterprise. About the nature of enterprise, the traditional civil law and company law mainly focused on the legal personality of an enterprise, took it as an entity to bear civil liability, no matter a corporate or a partnership. The nature of the enterprise, regardless of law, in economics, is different from law. Different perspective will inevitably produce different conclusions. For example, Coase research enterprise from the perspective of the study on enterprise integration (monopoly), he found the existence of transaction costs, came to the conclusion that the enterprise was a price mechanism. Since Kos "nature of the form" (1937), Western economists have focused to explore the nature of the business from the perspective of transaction costs, enterprise as a price mechanism has gradually become a consensus. As to the studying on the nature of enterprise from the perspective of capital, the main aims has been for the analysis of corporate earnings and cost issues.
The purpose of analysis of the nature of enterprise in my thesis is to decide the capital responsibility by analyzing capital structure of enterprise. The enterprise structure can be divided into two structures, capital structure and production structure. These two structures are different but related. The capital structure consists of equity capitals and debt capitals. The structure of production refers to the boundaries of the enterprise. This chapter focuses, from an economic perspective, on the capital structure of enterprise, comes to the conclusion that enterprise is a capital portfolio, a community of interests of the various types of investors. In this chapter, through the analysis of the nature of capital portfolio companies, I try to make the distinction between the nature of liability of mass injury personal claims and the commercial debts. I argue that the enterprise is a combination of capital, the claims of various types of capitalists, who are the capital providers to the bankrupt enterprise and have business interest in the in the process of production and trade, should be classified as commercial credits which recognized as the capital recovery arrangements by law, especially bankruptcy law, whether the secured credits, unsecured credits. This capital transaction arrangements exist based on the non-bankruptcy law, recognized and acknowledged the traditional bankruptcy law. Liabilities for personal injury was transferred into commom unsecured credit by traditional bankruptcy law, but originally it did not belong to the scope of the commercial claims against the bankrupt, this transmission was lacking of theoretical support of the law and economics. In economics, commercial credits belongs to the areas of enterprise capital, should bear the risk of capital in the earnings process; personal injury tort claims, as externality, belong to the cost of production in the earnings process, must be borne by the capitals. Commercial claims belong to the areas of creditors'' contractual rights in law, personal injury debt is the statutory obligations of the scope of enterprises. Traditional bankruptcy law is a merchant law, its core is on the distribution of property by maximizing the value of the estate. If the claims classification of the traditional bankruptcy law was mechanically applicable to mass personal injury bankruptcy cases, this will inevitably lead to the capitals and cost to be confused, in theory, and also an contravention of the principle of law, and a violation to the principles of economics; in effect will inevitably lead to the victims to bear the tort costs for tortfeasors.
Under the premise of the above analysis, this paper argues that the "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law" shall undertake the functions of tort law and follow the principle of full compensation of tort law in mass personal injury bankruptcy cases. For this purpose, the establishment of super-priority system for relief of personal injury claimants should be necessary to bankruptcy law, under this super-priority personal injury claimants'' claims should take precedence over any other creditors. Moreover, when the bankruptcy property is insufficient to compensate the personal injury claimants, the enterprise capital providers, such as controlling shareholder, controlling creditors, and senior managers should be jointly and severally liable to the victims. As a theoretical omnibus in the last part of this chapter, this chapter carried out an economic law analysis, by both positive and negative, to the relief system of mass injury tort claimants in bankruptcy from both respective of the purpose of economic law and economic law externalities. And also tried to make a constructive academic point of view, such as there are also external issues in economic law, as well as the structural problems exist in market regulation law.
Chapter IV is the final part of this thesis, I made a suggestion that a special chapter "Special Provisions for Mass Personal Injury Tort Bankruptcy" should be inserted in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. I selected 10 typical problems to try to build a basic legal framework for relief of mass personal injury claimants in Enterprise Bankruptcy Law, in order to make "Enterprise Bankruptcy Law," not only be able to maintain the stability of the basic content and structure, but also be able to cope with mass personal injury tort bankruptcy cases, to give personal injury victims full and effective relief. By this way, the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law should be upgraded to a modern bankruptcy law, have functions both to solve the problem of distribution of commercial credits, also effectively solve the problem of mass personal injury tort claims relief. In addition to institution building proposal, this chapter also explored and expanded relevant theories, such as market share liability theory and theory of infringement before bankruptcy, to compensate for ontology insufficient in order to ensure this papers in the overall structure and content of the smooth flow of harmony and unity.
My writing goal was concise, compelling, and easy to read and understand, and no longer than the thesis topic. I would like to thank Professor Liu Ruifu, Li Ming, Zhang Shouwen, Liu Jianwen, Gan Peizhong, Pan Jianfeng, Jiang Daxing, Piao Wendan and all other professors for helpful comments on my previous draft of this thesis. Useful comments were also gathered in day-to-day studying. I thank all of the authors whose books or articles gave me meaningful ideas.
Keywords: Mass Personal Injury Tort, Future Claim of Personal Injury, Capital Portfolio, Classification of Claims, super-priority system.
