论担保物权在破产程序中的实现（上）/许德风(18)
[50] MüKo-Lwowski, § 172 InsO Rn. 39; Smid-Smid, § 172 InsO Rn. 5; Nerlich / Römermann-Becker, § 172 InsO Rn. 30.
[51] 前引注39, Bork, S. 7.
[52] 见前注2，许德风文。
[53] Baird, supra note 27, p. 217.
[54] 既有的研究主要着眼于变现权的性质、变现的主体等问题上，缺乏对技术性规则的探讨，对破产中担保物的变现问题就更少有涉及。如罗越明等：《物权法抵押权强制实现制度的性质及适用》，《法律适用》，2008年第10期；曹士兵：《我国<物权法>关于抵押权实现的规定》，《法律适用》，2008年第1期；程啸：《现行法中抵押权实现制度的一些缺陷及完善》，《法学杂志》，2005年第3期。
[55] General Electric Credit Corp. v. Levin & Weintraub, 739 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1984); Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1 (2000).
[56] Hinekl, Essentials of Practical Real Estate Law, West Legal Studies, 2004, p. 123. 不通过司法强制执行而直接将标的物出卖的制度安排，早在纽约州1774年时便有成文法的规定。Göbel, Die Sicherung eines Kredits aus dem unbeweglichen Vermögen des Schuldners im Recht der USA, Duncker & Humblot, 1974, S. 46.
[57] 美国《破产法》中对此有详细的规定，如：11 USC §§ 363(c)(1), 704(a)(1), 1107(a), 1108.
[58] “…The touchstone of ‘ordinariness’ is thus the interested parties’ reasonable expectations of what transactions the debtor in possession is likely to enter in the course of its business. So long as the transactions conducted are consistent with these expectations, creditor have no right to notice and hearing, because their objections to such transactions are likely to relate to the bankrupt’s chapter 11 status, not the particular transactions themselves.” In re James A. Philips, Inc., 29 B.R. 391, 394 (S.D.N.Y. 1983); Warren, Bankruptcy, 6th. ed., Foundation Press, 2002, p. 613.
总共25页
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] 18
[19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] 上一页 下一页