国际私法视角下的跨境资产证券化研究
|
摘要
从法学的角度来看,跨境资产证券化就是通过采用证券化打包技术,将流动性欠佳、但具有稳定的未来现金流的应收账款等债权资产予以重组,分割为标准化、单位化的有价证券并在金融市场上出售和流通,据以获取资金的一种债权融资方式。资产证券化的实务运作与法律框架最早发端于美国,作为一种结构化融资方式,其本身具有复杂的交易结构；在资产证券化跨境运作过程中,各国相关法律规范于制度、功能和价值层面上存在诸多差异,其典型表现体现于特殊目的载体的建构与运行、基础资产转让、风险隔离、证券的发行与交易、证券化过程中的担保及与货币兑换有关的问题等。本文围绕跨境资产证券化运作过程中面临的法律问题与挑战开展系统研究,并试图对证券化跨境运作中遇到的法律冲突提出相应的解决对策。
全文共分为六个章节。在第一章对跨境资产证券化基本理论进行总述的基础上,其后五章以历史和逻辑相一致的方法,由浅入深地论述了资产证券化跨境运作的交易结构、主要法律冲突类别、相关法律冲突的法律适用、统一实体私法解决路径探讨、我国开展跨境资产证券化的法律问题及建议。
作为全文的理论起点,第一章全面论述了跨境资产证券化的一般原理。该部分首先对跨境资产证券化的概念与内涵等基本问题进行综述。阐述了其在功能性上属于依靠资产信用为基础的结构化融资安排,以及相关法律冲突的客观存在与国际私法解决途径的寻求为其不可逾越的必由之路等两点核心特征。在此基础上,总结出跨境资产证券化生成与发展的三大主要驱动因素：金融全球化的发展与变化、国际间监管资本的套利驱动、不同司法区域金融法律制度的差异性。其后,考虑到跨境资产证券化脱胎于传统意义上的资产证券化,作者对资产证券化在国际主要资本市场的实践进行梳理,通过对资产证券化在美国、英国、法国、日本、韩国等发达国家的共性与个性分析,从其在现实经济生活中的发展历程及配套法律环境变迁中,抽象出跨境资产证券化的历史传承及其法律规制的轨迹,既阐述了跨境资产证券化相对于传统融资的融资方式创新和制度区别,也显示了国际社会的相关立法主动适应并牵引资产证券化向前的积极功效,从而为后续各章作出良好的理论铺垫。
在对跨境资产证券化的功能和特征进行论述之后,对其跨境运作过程中法律机理、法律冲突及解决机制的分析探讨为其后几章的核心内容。第二章是对跨境资产证券化交易结构所作的研究。在这一交易结构中,鉴于一项跨境资产证券化中“跨境”因素的组成中无外乎包括涉外主体、客体、内容等三个方面,这一章主要从法学的角度出发,围绕上述三个方面详细讨论该种特殊的境外证券化融资交易结构及其法律关系构成。第一节首先分析了跨境资产证券化交易通常涉及的发起人、特殊目的载体(Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV)、初始债务人及证券交易投资者等主要参与主体的概念与内涵。这些参与主体具有基于证券化跨境运作模式所体现出的独有之处,同时在大陆法系和英美法系的不同背景下又存在法律地位及权利义务规范上的差异性,对证券化跨境运作的成败构成重要影响。据此,需要对原始权益人(originator)和再次出售人(sponsor)等不同的发起人类型、特殊目的信托与特殊目的公司等不同的特殊目的载体形式、原始债务人清偿义务的解除条件及其权益保护、针对投资者的信用增级等具体法律问题予以充分认识及解读。第二节讨论了关于跨境资产证券化基础资产的法律问题。由于在证券化跨境操作的特殊环境当中,各国、各地区对于可被证券化的合格基础资产的筛选存在较大争议。以证券化基础资产的基本特征为着眼点,作者从该类资产在某些方面具有一定的同质性、预期可产生稳定的现金流、来源应该避免过于集中化、资产必须具有可转让性等方面入手,分析了各法域在基础资产分类方面各自的衡量尺度与可取之处,认为基于“跨境”因素的存在及各国法律制度的差异,对于基础资产的筛选会较一般证券化而言应更为审慎,继而探讨了较为常见的两大类基础资产——一类为商业银行信贷资产,另一类是大型跨国公司所发起的基础设施建设与商品出口应收账款,并结合近年来不良资产作为跨境资产证券化基础资产的个案不断增加的现实情况,从法律角度对国际商业银行开展不良资产跨境资产证券化的必要性与可行性进行了分析。第三节论述了跨境资产证券化中资产转让的法律问题。在跨境证券化领域,由于各国对于资产转让的法律模式存在不同观点,各参与方对于由此涉及的“真实销售”问题亦给予了高度关注,其法律冲突一直较为突出。因此,该节围绕各国对于资产转让法律模式存在的不同认识,就跨境资产证券化资产转让的信托转让、债务更新、从属参与、债权转让等四种主要模式的法律问题展开全面探讨。第四节指出跨境资产证券化实践中由于各国证券化法律制度、会计制度及金融技术发展等的不同,对于资产支持证券的认识也会存在较大差异,并进而结合美国及大陆法律主要国家的证券立法与相关司法判例,就资产支持证券是否属于传统证券法归属范畴、是否需要受证券法管辖与进行信息披露、对资产支持证券性质在具体司法实践中如何开展判断等法律问题进行了分析。
第三章紧密围绕资产证券化跨境运作面临的诸多法律冲突,从冲突法的多个层面予以剖析,以求充分展示在金融全球化环境下开展资产证券化融资所需面对的复杂法律状况。第一节是关于特殊目的载体组建及运营过程中的法律冲突。作者从不同法域之间对于设立与运营不同形式的特殊目的载体的法律规范剖析入手,对其间涉及的认受性、“破产隔离”及“真实销售”等复杂法律问题,区分特殊目的信托及特殊目的公司等不同组建形态,从信托法、公司法等不同部门法角度分别进行创设与实务应用分析。同时指出,无论是选用特殊目的信托还是特殊目的公司形态,跨境资产证券化运作中的特殊目的载体作为一个特殊交易结构中的法人,其身份具有独特性,以确定法人国籍的传统方式来套用于特殊目的载体的国籍并不是一个灵活、实用的方法。第二节讨论了跨境资产证券化的资产转让法律冲突。该部分从目前被广泛采用的债权转让模式出发,集中讨论了债权转让的通知、债权转让的法律性质、以及在多重转让下存在的优先权等法律问题。在债权转让通知方面,分析了各国法律规定基于自由主义、通知主义、同意主义等原则所体现的通知形式和效力差异；在债权转让的法律性质方面,区分英美法系以及大陆法系国家两大阵营分析了各自在该问题上的观点；同时,对多重转让情况下的优先权问题,围绕受让在先、通知在先及英美法确定的优先权规则等三种模式分别进行了阐述。由于资产转让的契约限制对跨境资产证券化资产转让成败构成较大影响,作者归纳并分析了各国法律规定的禁止转让条款无效、禁止转让条款有效及禁止转让条款相对有效等三种做法,指出从主要发达国家的立法及司法实践来看,目前做法更倾向于在商事法律领域对禁止转让限制条款加以约束,从而便利于资本的流转及融资的便利。第三节专门讨论了与风险隔离相关的法律冲突。风险隔离目的的实现首先需要遵循资产转让环节的“真实销售”原则。以“真实销售”的判断与把握为着眼点,作者分析了区分基础资产转让究竟构成为真实的债权转让抑或构成为担保融资的各国立法及司法差异。而在不符合交易所涉及国家的“真实销售”要求并被确认为担保融资或其它属性的交易的情形下,将产生“重新定性风险”,该情形下特殊目的载体是否对证券化基础资产拥有担保权益,以及该担保权益如何能够得到有效保障,亦在该节中得到详细阐述。鉴于在德国、日本等大陆法系国家中存在的“让与担保”制度与“真实销售”容易出现混淆,作者又分析了让与担保法律理论中的所有权构成论与担保权构成论的区别,指出以所有权构成论的角度来诠释让与担保制度,才能达至两大法系在跨境资产证券化中的有机融合,有效实现债权的跨境流通。第四节是关于证券化跨境运作中的证券发行与销售法律冲突。跨境资产证券化所具有的特殊融资交易结构,使其资产支持证券的发行及销售与一般意义上的企业证券发行及销售具有明显区别。因而作者从法律冲突的视角探讨了证券发行与销售环节法律冲突的形成原因、资产支持证券发行与承销的主要环节、资产支持证券发行与销售环节存在的法律冲突类型及特点等三个方面的问题。跨境资产证券化运作中涉及的担保法律冲突被设于第五节进行讨论,该节较为集中地就有关流动性便利提供者担保权益的法律冲突、信用增级的担保法律冲突两方面展开论述。由于在跨境运作的资产证券化实践中,发行人通过证券化形式筹集的资金使用方向呈多元化趋势,第六节围绕跨境资产证券化中的外汇兑换问题产生原因及防范手段、使用金融衍生工具的信用及法律风险、有关外汇兑换的国际法律冲突表征进行了分析,指出虽然在跨境资产证券化交易中使用金融衍生交易作为规避货币汇率风险的手段将产生一系列法律冲突,但从整体上看,金融衍生工具依然是建立在合同、担保等一系列民商事法律制度基础上的交易,以合同为中心,全面梳理隐藏于跨境资产证券化中的金融衍生交易背后看似复杂的一系列法律现象,依然可以为我们寻找相关法律冲突的解决路径获取启示。
第四章以上一章中深入讨论的跨境资产证券化过程中各类法律冲突为对象,分析指出在确定冲突规范之适用范围时,应采纳分割方法、而非统一方法为宜。其后,分别结合特殊目的载体的组建与运营、证券化资产转让、风险隔离机制、证券发行与销售、担保、货币兑换等六类法律冲突类型,逐一从冲突规则的角度阐述了解决冲突的法律适用途径——在跨境资产证券化中特殊目的载体的法律适用方面,考虑到采取特殊目的信托模式可避免由于部分国家未承认为跨境证券化目的而成立的特殊目的公司之合法性争议,主要围绕特殊目的信托识别的法律适用、特殊目的信托有效性的法律适用、特殊目的信托当事人权利与义务的法律适用等问题展开分析。跨境资产证券化中资产转让的法律适用方面,涵盖的问题聚焦于债权资产的可转让性、债权资产转让的通知、转让人与受让人的法律关系、受让人与债务人的法律关系、债权资产转让的优先权等领域。跨境资产证券化中风险隔离的法律适用方面,风险隔离机制是跨境资产证券化运作中设计最为精妙的一个环节,但鉴于各国或各地区对于风险隔离机制中各类要素的法律规定不一,如无法通过有效适用冲突规则解决相关冲突,将对证券化跨境运作的构成机理构成重大冲击,该节从会计法、破产法意义上“真实销售”及其判断标准的法律适用进行了详尽分析,并就与之具有密切关联的特殊目的载体破产隔离“实体合并”问题的法律适用展开讨论。在跨境资产证券化中证券发行与销售的法律适用方面,作者在分别阐述了适用当事人属人法、适用当事人意思自治原则、适用证券所在地法及适用证券行为地法及“相关中间人所在地”原则等选项后,指出中间人所在地法已逐步为众多国家在涉外证券法律冲突的立法中所接受,正成为国际上较为通用的涉外证券法律关系准据法原则。在跨境资产证券化中担保的法律适用方面,关于“重新定性”的三种主要模式、交易被“重新定性”为担保融资情况下的法律适用等问题为关注的重点。由于在处理重新定性问题上的法律适用将对证券化产品投资者产生重大影响,作者认为,“重新定性”情形下宜适用经当事人双方明示选择适用于证券化基础资产转让法律冲突的相关法律,从而为跨境资产证券化各方当事人——尤其是投资者——的权益保障提供相对稳定的预期；该节中亦对跨境资产证券化中流动性便利提供者的担保权益及信用增级相关的法律适用予以论述。在跨境资产证券化中货币兑换的法律适用方面,作者首先分析了作为解决货币兑换问题手段的金融衍生工具之法律特性,继而分析了跨境资产证券化中与金融衍生工具相关的法律适用,再就跨境资产证券化中金融衍生工具的使用与“公共秩序”保留两者之关系进行了探讨。
第五章主要讨论的是跨境资产证券化法律冲突的统一实体法解决路径。首先,从当前阶段看,冲突规范在处理跨境资产证券化法律冲突时依然是必不可少的法律调整手段,但以冲突法作为主要解决途径也存在有着一些无法克服的缺陷,如解决跨境资产证券化法律冲突的冲突规则自身存在缺陷、跨境资产证券化法律冲突背后蕴藏诸多不同法域在法律理论上的抵触、一旦被指定作为准据法的法律体系并无跨境资产证券化具体规范或不允许相关操作时会显得尤其不合理等。其次,作者分析了跨境资产证券化领域开展实体私法的国际统一之可行性,并对跨境资产证券化国际统一立法现状及未来发展设想展开深入探讨,指出相关实体私法的国际统一化进程需重点从几个方面加以考虑：一是应将资产证券化统一实体私法放在经济与金融全球一体化的大背景下予以统筹考量,二是应高度重视跨境资产证券化国际惯例的发展并发挥其应有功能,三是证券化统一实体私法需要跟随国际融资市场及该业务实践的变化作出相应的调适与修订。再次,《联合国国际贸易应收帐款转让公约》作为迄今为止在调整跨境资产证券化相关法律问题中最为重要的国际公约,其内容被予以详细介绍,具体包括《公约》制订背景、立法原则与适用范围、主要条款分析、对跨境资产证券化发展的影响等。同时,考虑到美国次债危机爆发以来的国际金融危机中,资产证券化的负向功能膨胀,导致其成为金融危机的导火索,而以巴塞尔委员会为代表的国际组织近年来不断开展对证券化功能、风险特征、发展走向及监管体系构筑的深层探讨,巴塞尔协议作为跨境资产证券化领域的重要国际惯例也被予以深入分析。作者认为,监管资本套利现象促使巴塞尔委员会关注资产证券化监管,在巴塞尔协议文件中确立了系统的监管体系以延伸化规范对象、统筹明确风险暴露类型、整体搭建证券化监管框架、明晰基础资产风险转移的认可标准。近年来基于资产证券化在国际金融危机中发挥的负面作用,再次从六个方面着手致力于监管体系的修订。我国证券化监管立法与巴塞尔协议监管体系的晚近变革契合度较高,但在加强证券化系统性风险监管、重视资产证券化创新风险、发挥资产证券化监管的市场约束机制等方面可进一步予以完善。最后,作者基于上述资料综述及研究分析后认为,随着跨境资产证券化运作的不断成熟,虽然法律冲突的协调与解决既可通过冲突法方式予以实现,也可借助国际公约与国际惯例的形式以实现国际层面的统一实体私法立法,但从跨境资产证券化未来发展趋势及两种调整方式的对比分析来看,统一实体私法将逐步演变为未来主要的发展途径指向。
在对各国跨境资产证券化法律制度、法律冲突及其解决途径进行研究的基础上,第六章着眼于我国的跨境资产证券化法律制度模式研究。我国曾在上世纪80年代起开展了多项具有跨境性质的资产证券化试验,但由于相关法律法规配套的不完善,包括跨境资产证券化操作在内的我国证券化实践开始陷入裹足不前的状况。此后,恰逢次贷危机爆发,无论是国际还是国内的金融监管当局与社会公众对于资产证券化的态度均由鼓励转向审慎观望,导致我国跨境资产证券化尝试陷入停滞,并自此一直停留于初级阶段。由于跨境资产证券化在我国尚处于起步探索阶段,目前尚未制定单独的立法予以专门规范,在有关资产证券化的法律法规文件中也未作出单独的阐述或规制,相关法律环境的配套尚不尽如人意。在分析上述现状及不足的基础上,作者提出了在近年来人民币国际化进程加速、离岸人民币市场日趋成熟且我国资产证券化再度重启的大背景下,应以离岸人民币资产证券化为切入点,借以探索跨境资产证券化的实践路径,同时建构及完善相关法律法规框架。具体而言,离岸人民币资产证券化是跨境融资市场上兼具离岸融资业务与资产证券化创新双重特点的新产品。在离岸市场开展跨境人民币资产证券化意义重大且具体可行。但是,离岸人民币资产证券化是一种经济现象,更是一整套复杂的法律安排。在跨境交易背景下,牵涉到合同、担保、信托、公司等涉外民商事法律诸多方面的复杂问题,需要在实体法层面出台涵盖境内外操作的证券化专门立法,在冲突法层面进一步补充完善证券化法律适用指引,在程序法层面引入并创新证券化多元化纠纷解决机制,从而完善离岸人民币资产证券化法律框架,将离岸人民币资产证券化的设想转化为现实。
From the legal point of view, cross-border asset securitization refers to a credit-right finance method which restructures credit-right asset with stable future cash flows, such as receivables, by using securitization packing technique, spliting credit-right asset into standardized and unitized securities for sale and circulation in financial market and finally, obtaining funds. The operation of asset securitization and legal framework originated in the U.S.. As a structure finance instrument, it holds complicated transaction structure. During the cross-border operation of securitization, there are many legal divergences in different legal jurisdictions, from regulation, function to value issues. The typical divergence is embodied in establishment and operation of special purpose vehicle(SPV), assignment of underlying asset, risk isolation, issuance and trading of securities, guarantees in securitization process and issue associated with currency conversion and so on. Focusing on legal issues and challenge, this dissertation aims to explore systematic research and develop a sensible legal solution for conflict of laws encountered in cross-border operation of asset securitization.
The whole dissertation contains six chapters. Based on an elaborated discussion on basic theory of cross-border asset securitization in the first chapter, the rest chapters analyze, from simple to complex, cross-border asset securitization transaction structure, main legal conflict, relevant application of law, exploration of uniform substantive private law in this issue, legal issues on carrying out cross-border asset securitization in China.
As the doctrinal foundation of the dissertation, the first chapter introduces the concept and connotation of cross-border asset securitization principles. Two core characteristics of cross-border asset securitization are described. The first one is its functionality of relying on asset credit to arrange structured financing. The second one is the objective existence of legal conflict and the insuperable path to seek private international law solution for the conflict of laws. On this basis, three main driving factors of cross-border asset securitization are summed up:the development and change in financial globalization, the international regulatory capital arbitrage driving factor, financial and legal system divergence of different jurisdictions. Taking into account that the cross-border asset securitization grew out of traditional asset securitization, the author then sorts through asset securitization practice in major international capital markets, analyses the commonness and individuality of asset securitization in U.S., Britain, France, Japan, South Korea and other developed countries. From its development in the real course of economic life and change in legal environment, the author abstracts out historical heritage and legal regulation trajectory of cross-border asset securitization's. Comparing with other traditional way of financing, the author demonstrates the financial innovation and legal system of cross-border asset securitization, and shows international community's legislative effort to adapt to its innovation and to move it forward positively. All of the background description makes good theoretical groundwork for subsequent chapters of this dissertation.
Having discussed the function and characteristics of cross-border asset securitization, analysis of its legal framework, legal conflict and resolution mechanism constitute the core content of subsequent chapters. The second chapter deals with transaction structure of cross-border asset securitization. In legal sense,"cross-border" factor of asset securitization is composed of three aspects, including foreign subject, foreign object and foreign contents. In Chapter Ⅱ, above-mentioned compositions of securitization financing transaction and their legal relationship are elaborated. Firstly, Section I analyzes the concept of major participants such as promoter, SPV, initial debtor and securities investors involved in cross-border asset securitization transactions. In operation of cross-border asset securitization, due to divergence of continental law and common law, the participants not only shows unique characteristic, but also have different legal status, rights and obligations. All of that will have significant impact on the success of cross-border operation. Accordingly, it's necessary to understand and interpret legal issues like:i) types of promoter such as originator and sponsor; ii) different forms of SPV such as special purpose trust and special purpose company; iii) discharged condition of original debtor's settlement obligation and its interest protection mechanism; and iv) specific credit enhancement for investors. Section II discusses legal issues of underlying assets. In special environment of cross-border operation, there is considerable controversy regarding qualified underlying assets in different countries and regions. Starting with characteristics of underlying assets like transferability, certain homogeneity, expectable and stable cash flow and decentralization of source,etc., the author analyzes methods and merits of underlying assets classification in various jurisdictions, then points out that screening standard for underlying assets will be more cautious in terms of cross-border securitization than that of general securitization. This is influenced by the exist of "cross-border" factors and divergence in different legal systems. Then a step forward, the author explores two common categories of underlying assets-the first one is credit assets from commercial banks, the other one is receivables of infrastructure and exporting commodity which are initiated by large multinational companies. Combining with the increasing trend of non-performing assets securitization, from legal perspective, the author also analyzes the necessity and feasibility of carrying out cross-border non-performing asset securitization by international commercial banks. Section Ⅲ focuses on legal issues relating to cross-border transfer of underlying assets. As countries have different views on legal model of transfer of underlying assets, participants have paid great attention to "true sale" problem involved. Therefore, the conflict of laws in "true sale" has been more prominent. In this section, the author explores legal issues relating to four major modes of transfer of assets in cross-border asset securitization, which are trust transfer, debt novation, sub-participation and credit-right assignment. In section Ⅳ, it is pointed out that, due to the difference in legal systems, accounting standards, financial technology development in cross-border asset securitization practice, there is a big divergence on asset-backed securities recognized. Combining with the securities legislation and related jurisprudence in U.S. and other major countries in continental law, issues regarding whether asset-backed securities fall in the range of traditional securities law, whether they are governed by securities act and information disclosure requirement, and how to judge the nature of the asset-backed securities were analyzed.
Chapter three analyzes conflict of laws issues which is faced by cross-border securitization operation, so as to fully display the complex legal status to carry out asset securitization in the context of financial globalization. Section Ⅰ is about the conflict of laws regarding establishment and operation of SPV. Beginning with the comparison of legal norms for the establishment and operation of SPV in different jurisdictions, the authors makes a distinction between special purpose trust and special purpose companies, then explores complex legal issues including acceptability of SPV,"bankruptcy isolation" and "true sale", etc. from perspective of various departments of law such as trust law and corporate law. The author also maintains that, regardless of the use of special purpose trust or special purpose company, SPV of is a legal person with unique identity in cross-border asset securitization. Therefore, it is not a flexible and pragmatic approach to determine the nationality of SPV in traditional way. Section II discusses conflict of laws regarding cross-border transfer of underlying assets. Focusing on credit-right transfer modes which are widely adopted currently, this section discusses legal problems relating to notification of credit-right assignment, legal nature of credit-right assignment, as well as priority under multiple assignment. As regards notification of credit-right assignment, this section analyzes difference in notification form and effectiveness. The difference is embodied in legal provisions of different jurisdiction and based on legal principles of liberalism, notification doctrine and consent doctrine. As regards legal nature of credit-right assignment, distinction of view between common law and continental law countries is analyzes. As far as the priority of multiple assignment is concerned, three modes to determine priority are described respectively, which are transfer priority rule, notification priority rule, and the priority rule in common law. Since the contractual restriction on asset transfer constitutes a great impact on the success of cross-border securitization, the author summarizes three types of practice in domestic law, which stipulate that transfer prohibition clause is invalid, valid and relatively valid. Then, the author points out that, from main-stream legislative and judicial practice in developed countries, it is more inclined to keep transfer restriction rule within bounds in the field of commercial law, so as to facilitate capital circulation and financing operation. Section III is about conflict of laws relating to risk isolation. For the purpose of risk isolation, it is very important to achieve "true sale" in asset transfer link. Beginning with the judgment standards of "true sale", the author discusses the distinction between "true sale" and secured financing according to domestic legislation and jurisprudents. If transaction involved does not meet "true sale" requirement in domestic law, it will be classified as secured financing transaction or transaction with other nature. In other words, it will have a "re-characterization risk". Issues regarding whether a SPV holds security interest on the securitized assets and how to effectively safeguard the security interests, will be dealt with in this section. In order to avoid mistaking "true sale" with "alienation guarantees" existed in continental law countries such as Germany and Japan, the authors also analyzes the difference between ownership composition theory and guarantee composition theory. After that, the author maintains that, to interpret "alienation guarantees" from the perspective of ownership composition theory, is the way to achieve organic integration of two legal systems in cross-border asset securitization. Section IV is about legal conflict of securities issuance and trading. Due to the special financing transaction structure of Cross-border asset securitization, issuance and trading of asset-backed securities are of a significant difference compared with those of normal enterprises. Therefore, from legal conflict perspective, the author explores three aspects of the problem:i) the causes of legal conflict in securities issuance and trading; ii) the major links of asset-backed securities issuance and underwriting; and iii) the types and characteristics of legal conflict in asset-backed securities issuance and trading. Conflict of laws regarding guarantee is dealt with in Section V. This section concentrate on two aspects of legal conflict relating to guarantee, which are conflict of laws associated with security interests of liquidity facility provider and that of credit enhancement. As usage of funds raised by cross-border asset securitization is diversified, Section VI analyzes:i) the causes of foreign exchange problems and the means of prevention; ii) the credit and legal risk of financial derivatives; iii) legal characteristic of the legal conflict relating to foreign exchange. Finally, the author points out that, although the use of financial derivative as a means to hedge currency exchange risk will produce a series of conflict of laws, but since financial derivatives is a transaction based on civil and commercial law system, we can still find relevant legal conflict resolution after studying on a series of comprehensive legal phenomena hidden behind the financial derivatives transactions.
After in-depth discussion of all kinds of conflict of laws, in Chapter Four, the author maintains that, in determining the scope of applicable law, segmentation approach rather than unified approach should be adopted. Subsequently, six major types of conflict of laws in cross-border securitization, including establishment and operation of SPV, transfer of underlying assets, risk isolation mechanism, securities issuance and trading, guarantee and currency exchange, are explored one by one from the perspective of the applications of law. Firstly, application of laws relating to SPV is discussed. Taking into account that the mode of special purpose trust is not recognized in some countries, the mode of special purpose company may be a good choice to avoid the controversy caused. Therefore, the application of laws regarding qualification of special purpose trust, validity of the special purpose trust and its legal rights and obligations are main issues analyzed in this part. Secondly, application of laws regarding underlying assets is analyzed. In this part, the author focuses on issues including transferability of credit-right assets, notification of asset transfer, the legal relationship between assignor and assignee, the legal relationship between assignee and debtor, priority of credit-right asset transfer and so on. Thirdly, application of laws relating to risk isolation is dealt with. Risk isolation mechanism is one of the most sophisticated design in cross-border asset securitization operation. Given that legal provisions regarding the fundamental element of risk isolation mechanism are different in domestic laws, if the conflict of laws can not be resolved through effective applicable law, it will have significant impact on the success of cross-border securitization operation. Thus, in this part, from accounting law to bankruptcy law perspective, the author analyzes the application of laws regarding "true sale" and criteria to judge it, as well as the application of laws associated with SPV "entity merge", which has a closely link with the discussion of "true sale". Fourthly, application of laws regarding issuance and trading of asset-back securities is dealt with. After detailed analysis of application of laws, which includes lex personalis, autonomy of will, lex rei sitae, lex loci actus and "PRIMA" principle, the author points out that "PRIMA" principle has been accepted in securities law legislation in many countries, thereby,"PRIMA" principle is becoming the common principle for choosing applicable law in conflict of securities laws aspect. Fifthly, application of laws relating to guarantee is discussed. The author pays special attention to three main modes of "re-characterization" and how to determine applicable law if the transaction is "re-characterized" as secured finance. The application of laws which is associated with "re-characterization" will have a significant impact on the interest of investors, the author believes that, under "re-characterization" circumstances, the law which is expressly chosen by participants themselves should be prevailed, so as to provide participants-especially investors-relatively stable expectation of interest protection. This part also discusses application of laws regarding security interest of liquidity facility providers as well as that of credit enhancement. Sixthly, application of laws relating to foreign exchange in cross-border asset securitization is dealt with. The author analyzes legal characteristics of financial derivatives, which is a solution to the foreign exchange problem. After that, application of laws relating to financial derivatives in cross-border asset securitization operation is explored. Finally, relationship between the use of financial derivatives and the "public order" reservation is explored.
Chapter Five explores harmonization of substantive private law, which is a possible solution to the conflict of laws of cross-border asset securitization. First of all, the conflict rules is still a essential legal regulation means in dealing with conflict of laws of cross-border asset securitization. However, the conflict rules have insurmountable faultiness. For example, the conflict rules have internal flaws in tackling conflict of laws of cross-border Asset Securitization; there is a lot of inconsistence of legal theory behind the conflict rules in cross-border asset securitization operation; once the applicable law is designated, it will be unreasonable if the corresponding legal system does not have legal norms regulating cross-border asset securitization or disallow the practice. Then a step forward, the author analyzes the feasibility of carrying out international harmonization of substantive private law in cross-border asset securitization. After in-depth study of legislation status and its future development, the author emphasis several views which should be think about carefully in international harmonization process of substantive private law:i) it should be considered in the context of economic and financial globalization; ii) the development of international practice of asset securitization should play an more importance role in the process; iii) the process need to follow changes of international financial markets and business practice of cross-border asset securitization, and, to make consequential amendments to adapt the rapid changes. Finally, as the most important international conventions in adjusting cross-border legal issues relating to asset securitization,"the United Nations International Convention on the Assignment of trade receivables" is described in detail. Specifically, the legislative background, legislative principles, scope of application, main terms of the Convention are analyzed, as well as its impact on the development of cross-border asset securitization. Besides, it is well known that, in U.S. sub-prime debt crisis and subsequent international financial crisis, negative effect of asset securitization bloated and made it the trigger of the financial crisis. After the crisis, international organizations, such as Basel Committee, have carried out discussion on the securitization function, risk characteristics, development trend and constitution of regulatory system. As an important international practice in cross-border asset securitization, Basel Agreement is analyzed in detail. The author maintains that, regulatory capital arbitrage is the driving factor for Basel Committee to concern about supervision of asset securitization. The supervision system was established in the Basel II to extend the objects of supervision, clarify risk exposure type, build securities regulatory framework and define standards of risk transfer of basic asset. In recent years, taking into acount the negative role of asset securitization in international financial crisis, the Basel Committee finished revisions to asset securitization regulation system from six aspects. Although China's securitization regulatory legislation is in alignment with the recent changes of securitization supervision system in Basel Agreement, it can be further perfected by strengthening the systemic risk prevention, paying more attention to asset securitization innovation risk, and making market principle mechanism play a more important role in securitization supervision. Finally, with the review of document and academic analysis, the authors points out that, although conflict of laws of cross-border asset securitization can be solved either by conflict rules or by international harmonization of substantive private law legislation, from the perspective of future trend and the comparison of two kinds of adjusting methods, international harmonization of substantive private law will prevail.
Based on the analysis of domestic legal system, conflict of laws and resolution mechanism of cross-border asset securitization, in Chapter Six, the author focuses on the study of legal system of cross-border asset securitization in China. Back in1980s, China has carried out a number of asset securitization practice with cross-border nature. However, due to the imperfection of supporting legal framework, asset securitization operation (including cross-border asset securitization operation) in China fell into stagnation. With the outbreak of sub-prime crisis, financial regulatory authorities and the public took a more cautious attitude to asset securitization. Since then, cross-border asset securitization in China was stuck in initial stage. As cross-border asset securitization in China is still in exploration stage, there has not yet a separate legislative norm specialized in cross-border asset securitization. The legal environment to support cross-border asset securitization practice is also not satisfactory. After analyzing the status and insufficiency of cross-border asset securitization in China, the authors proposes that, with the acceleration of the internationalization of offshore RMB market and the restart of asset securitization exploration, offshore RMB asset securitization can be the breakthrough point of building legal framework of cross-border asset securitization in China. Specifically speaking, offshore RMB asst securitization is the new product combining characteristic of offshore finance and innovation of asset securitization. With the rapid development of RMB currency internationalization and offshore RMB market, it is not only important and but also possible to launch cross-border RMB asset securitization in offshore RMB market. But the process has to confront obstacle of substantive law, conflict law and procedure law in different levels. Therefore, in substantive law level, legislation specialized for securitization operation need to be stipulated. In conflict law level, guideline for application of laws need to be supplemented. In process law level, innovation to deal with the conflict of laws in securitization should be introduced. All of the revision and perfection will help to optimize the legal framework of offshore RMB Asset Securitization and translate the suggestion into reality.
全文共分为六个章节。在第一章对跨境资产证券化基本理论进行总述的基础上,其后五章以历史和逻辑相一致的方法,由浅入深地论述了资产证券化跨境运作的交易结构、主要法律冲突类别、相关法律冲突的法律适用、统一实体私法解决路径探讨、我国开展跨境资产证券化的法律问题及建议。
作为全文的理论起点,第一章全面论述了跨境资产证券化的一般原理。该部分首先对跨境资产证券化的概念与内涵等基本问题进行综述。阐述了其在功能性上属于依靠资产信用为基础的结构化融资安排,以及相关法律冲突的客观存在与国际私法解决途径的寻求为其不可逾越的必由之路等两点核心特征。在此基础上,总结出跨境资产证券化生成与发展的三大主要驱动因素：金融全球化的发展与变化、国际间监管资本的套利驱动、不同司法区域金融法律制度的差异性。其后,考虑到跨境资产证券化脱胎于传统意义上的资产证券化,作者对资产证券化在国际主要资本市场的实践进行梳理,通过对资产证券化在美国、英国、法国、日本、韩国等发达国家的共性与个性分析,从其在现实经济生活中的发展历程及配套法律环境变迁中,抽象出跨境资产证券化的历史传承及其法律规制的轨迹,既阐述了跨境资产证券化相对于传统融资的融资方式创新和制度区别,也显示了国际社会的相关立法主动适应并牵引资产证券化向前的积极功效,从而为后续各章作出良好的理论铺垫。
在对跨境资产证券化的功能和特征进行论述之后,对其跨境运作过程中法律机理、法律冲突及解决机制的分析探讨为其后几章的核心内容。第二章是对跨境资产证券化交易结构所作的研究。在这一交易结构中,鉴于一项跨境资产证券化中“跨境”因素的组成中无外乎包括涉外主体、客体、内容等三个方面,这一章主要从法学的角度出发,围绕上述三个方面详细讨论该种特殊的境外证券化融资交易结构及其法律关系构成。第一节首先分析了跨境资产证券化交易通常涉及的发起人、特殊目的载体(Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV)、初始债务人及证券交易投资者等主要参与主体的概念与内涵。这些参与主体具有基于证券化跨境运作模式所体现出的独有之处,同时在大陆法系和英美法系的不同背景下又存在法律地位及权利义务规范上的差异性,对证券化跨境运作的成败构成重要影响。据此,需要对原始权益人(originator)和再次出售人(sponsor)等不同的发起人类型、特殊目的信托与特殊目的公司等不同的特殊目的载体形式、原始债务人清偿义务的解除条件及其权益保护、针对投资者的信用增级等具体法律问题予以充分认识及解读。第二节讨论了关于跨境资产证券化基础资产的法律问题。由于在证券化跨境操作的特殊环境当中,各国、各地区对于可被证券化的合格基础资产的筛选存在较大争议。以证券化基础资产的基本特征为着眼点,作者从该类资产在某些方面具有一定的同质性、预期可产生稳定的现金流、来源应该避免过于集中化、资产必须具有可转让性等方面入手,分析了各法域在基础资产分类方面各自的衡量尺度与可取之处,认为基于“跨境”因素的存在及各国法律制度的差异,对于基础资产的筛选会较一般证券化而言应更为审慎,继而探讨了较为常见的两大类基础资产——一类为商业银行信贷资产,另一类是大型跨国公司所发起的基础设施建设与商品出口应收账款,并结合近年来不良资产作为跨境资产证券化基础资产的个案不断增加的现实情况,从法律角度对国际商业银行开展不良资产跨境资产证券化的必要性与可行性进行了分析。第三节论述了跨境资产证券化中资产转让的法律问题。在跨境证券化领域,由于各国对于资产转让的法律模式存在不同观点,各参与方对于由此涉及的“真实销售”问题亦给予了高度关注,其法律冲突一直较为突出。因此,该节围绕各国对于资产转让法律模式存在的不同认识,就跨境资产证券化资产转让的信托转让、债务更新、从属参与、债权转让等四种主要模式的法律问题展开全面探讨。第四节指出跨境资产证券化实践中由于各国证券化法律制度、会计制度及金融技术发展等的不同,对于资产支持证券的认识也会存在较大差异,并进而结合美国及大陆法律主要国家的证券立法与相关司法判例,就资产支持证券是否属于传统证券法归属范畴、是否需要受证券法管辖与进行信息披露、对资产支持证券性质在具体司法实践中如何开展判断等法律问题进行了分析。
第三章紧密围绕资产证券化跨境运作面临的诸多法律冲突,从冲突法的多个层面予以剖析,以求充分展示在金融全球化环境下开展资产证券化融资所需面对的复杂法律状况。第一节是关于特殊目的载体组建及运营过程中的法律冲突。作者从不同法域之间对于设立与运营不同形式的特殊目的载体的法律规范剖析入手,对其间涉及的认受性、“破产隔离”及“真实销售”等复杂法律问题,区分特殊目的信托及特殊目的公司等不同组建形态,从信托法、公司法等不同部门法角度分别进行创设与实务应用分析。同时指出,无论是选用特殊目的信托还是特殊目的公司形态,跨境资产证券化运作中的特殊目的载体作为一个特殊交易结构中的法人,其身份具有独特性,以确定法人国籍的传统方式来套用于特殊目的载体的国籍并不是一个灵活、实用的方法。第二节讨论了跨境资产证券化的资产转让法律冲突。该部分从目前被广泛采用的债权转让模式出发,集中讨论了债权转让的通知、债权转让的法律性质、以及在多重转让下存在的优先权等法律问题。在债权转让通知方面,分析了各国法律规定基于自由主义、通知主义、同意主义等原则所体现的通知形式和效力差异；在债权转让的法律性质方面,区分英美法系以及大陆法系国家两大阵营分析了各自在该问题上的观点；同时,对多重转让情况下的优先权问题,围绕受让在先、通知在先及英美法确定的优先权规则等三种模式分别进行了阐述。由于资产转让的契约限制对跨境资产证券化资产转让成败构成较大影响,作者归纳并分析了各国法律规定的禁止转让条款无效、禁止转让条款有效及禁止转让条款相对有效等三种做法,指出从主要发达国家的立法及司法实践来看,目前做法更倾向于在商事法律领域对禁止转让限制条款加以约束,从而便利于资本的流转及融资的便利。第三节专门讨论了与风险隔离相关的法律冲突。风险隔离目的的实现首先需要遵循资产转让环节的“真实销售”原则。以“真实销售”的判断与把握为着眼点,作者分析了区分基础资产转让究竟构成为真实的债权转让抑或构成为担保融资的各国立法及司法差异。而在不符合交易所涉及国家的“真实销售”要求并被确认为担保融资或其它属性的交易的情形下,将产生“重新定性风险”,该情形下特殊目的载体是否对证券化基础资产拥有担保权益,以及该担保权益如何能够得到有效保障,亦在该节中得到详细阐述。鉴于在德国、日本等大陆法系国家中存在的“让与担保”制度与“真实销售”容易出现混淆,作者又分析了让与担保法律理论中的所有权构成论与担保权构成论的区别,指出以所有权构成论的角度来诠释让与担保制度,才能达至两大法系在跨境资产证券化中的有机融合,有效实现债权的跨境流通。第四节是关于证券化跨境运作中的证券发行与销售法律冲突。跨境资产证券化所具有的特殊融资交易结构,使其资产支持证券的发行及销售与一般意义上的企业证券发行及销售具有明显区别。因而作者从法律冲突的视角探讨了证券发行与销售环节法律冲突的形成原因、资产支持证券发行与承销的主要环节、资产支持证券发行与销售环节存在的法律冲突类型及特点等三个方面的问题。跨境资产证券化运作中涉及的担保法律冲突被设于第五节进行讨论,该节较为集中地就有关流动性便利提供者担保权益的法律冲突、信用增级的担保法律冲突两方面展开论述。由于在跨境运作的资产证券化实践中,发行人通过证券化形式筹集的资金使用方向呈多元化趋势,第六节围绕跨境资产证券化中的外汇兑换问题产生原因及防范手段、使用金融衍生工具的信用及法律风险、有关外汇兑换的国际法律冲突表征进行了分析,指出虽然在跨境资产证券化交易中使用金融衍生交易作为规避货币汇率风险的手段将产生一系列法律冲突,但从整体上看,金融衍生工具依然是建立在合同、担保等一系列民商事法律制度基础上的交易,以合同为中心,全面梳理隐藏于跨境资产证券化中的金融衍生交易背后看似复杂的一系列法律现象,依然可以为我们寻找相关法律冲突的解决路径获取启示。
第四章以上一章中深入讨论的跨境资产证券化过程中各类法律冲突为对象,分析指出在确定冲突规范之适用范围时,应采纳分割方法、而非统一方法为宜。其后,分别结合特殊目的载体的组建与运营、证券化资产转让、风险隔离机制、证券发行与销售、担保、货币兑换等六类法律冲突类型,逐一从冲突规则的角度阐述了解决冲突的法律适用途径——在跨境资产证券化中特殊目的载体的法律适用方面,考虑到采取特殊目的信托模式可避免由于部分国家未承认为跨境证券化目的而成立的特殊目的公司之合法性争议,主要围绕特殊目的信托识别的法律适用、特殊目的信托有效性的法律适用、特殊目的信托当事人权利与义务的法律适用等问题展开分析。跨境资产证券化中资产转让的法律适用方面,涵盖的问题聚焦于债权资产的可转让性、债权资产转让的通知、转让人与受让人的法律关系、受让人与债务人的法律关系、债权资产转让的优先权等领域。跨境资产证券化中风险隔离的法律适用方面,风险隔离机制是跨境资产证券化运作中设计最为精妙的一个环节,但鉴于各国或各地区对于风险隔离机制中各类要素的法律规定不一,如无法通过有效适用冲突规则解决相关冲突,将对证券化跨境运作的构成机理构成重大冲击,该节从会计法、破产法意义上“真实销售”及其判断标准的法律适用进行了详尽分析,并就与之具有密切关联的特殊目的载体破产隔离“实体合并”问题的法律适用展开讨论。在跨境资产证券化中证券发行与销售的法律适用方面,作者在分别阐述了适用当事人属人法、适用当事人意思自治原则、适用证券所在地法及适用证券行为地法及“相关中间人所在地”原则等选项后,指出中间人所在地法已逐步为众多国家在涉外证券法律冲突的立法中所接受,正成为国际上较为通用的涉外证券法律关系准据法原则。在跨境资产证券化中担保的法律适用方面,关于“重新定性”的三种主要模式、交易被“重新定性”为担保融资情况下的法律适用等问题为关注的重点。由于在处理重新定性问题上的法律适用将对证券化产品投资者产生重大影响,作者认为,“重新定性”情形下宜适用经当事人双方明示选择适用于证券化基础资产转让法律冲突的相关法律,从而为跨境资产证券化各方当事人——尤其是投资者——的权益保障提供相对稳定的预期；该节中亦对跨境资产证券化中流动性便利提供者的担保权益及信用增级相关的法律适用予以论述。在跨境资产证券化中货币兑换的法律适用方面,作者首先分析了作为解决货币兑换问题手段的金融衍生工具之法律特性,继而分析了跨境资产证券化中与金融衍生工具相关的法律适用,再就跨境资产证券化中金融衍生工具的使用与“公共秩序”保留两者之关系进行了探讨。
第五章主要讨论的是跨境资产证券化法律冲突的统一实体法解决路径。首先,从当前阶段看,冲突规范在处理跨境资产证券化法律冲突时依然是必不可少的法律调整手段,但以冲突法作为主要解决途径也存在有着一些无法克服的缺陷,如解决跨境资产证券化法律冲突的冲突规则自身存在缺陷、跨境资产证券化法律冲突背后蕴藏诸多不同法域在法律理论上的抵触、一旦被指定作为准据法的法律体系并无跨境资产证券化具体规范或不允许相关操作时会显得尤其不合理等。其次,作者分析了跨境资产证券化领域开展实体私法的国际统一之可行性,并对跨境资产证券化国际统一立法现状及未来发展设想展开深入探讨,指出相关实体私法的国际统一化进程需重点从几个方面加以考虑：一是应将资产证券化统一实体私法放在经济与金融全球一体化的大背景下予以统筹考量,二是应高度重视跨境资产证券化国际惯例的发展并发挥其应有功能,三是证券化统一实体私法需要跟随国际融资市场及该业务实践的变化作出相应的调适与修订。再次,《联合国国际贸易应收帐款转让公约》作为迄今为止在调整跨境资产证券化相关法律问题中最为重要的国际公约,其内容被予以详细介绍,具体包括《公约》制订背景、立法原则与适用范围、主要条款分析、对跨境资产证券化发展的影响等。同时,考虑到美国次债危机爆发以来的国际金融危机中,资产证券化的负向功能膨胀,导致其成为金融危机的导火索,而以巴塞尔委员会为代表的国际组织近年来不断开展对证券化功能、风险特征、发展走向及监管体系构筑的深层探讨,巴塞尔协议作为跨境资产证券化领域的重要国际惯例也被予以深入分析。作者认为,监管资本套利现象促使巴塞尔委员会关注资产证券化监管,在巴塞尔协议文件中确立了系统的监管体系以延伸化规范对象、统筹明确风险暴露类型、整体搭建证券化监管框架、明晰基础资产风险转移的认可标准。近年来基于资产证券化在国际金融危机中发挥的负面作用,再次从六个方面着手致力于监管体系的修订。我国证券化监管立法与巴塞尔协议监管体系的晚近变革契合度较高,但在加强证券化系统性风险监管、重视资产证券化创新风险、发挥资产证券化监管的市场约束机制等方面可进一步予以完善。最后,作者基于上述资料综述及研究分析后认为,随着跨境资产证券化运作的不断成熟,虽然法律冲突的协调与解决既可通过冲突法方式予以实现,也可借助国际公约与国际惯例的形式以实现国际层面的统一实体私法立法,但从跨境资产证券化未来发展趋势及两种调整方式的对比分析来看,统一实体私法将逐步演变为未来主要的发展途径指向。
在对各国跨境资产证券化法律制度、法律冲突及其解决途径进行研究的基础上,第六章着眼于我国的跨境资产证券化法律制度模式研究。我国曾在上世纪80年代起开展了多项具有跨境性质的资产证券化试验,但由于相关法律法规配套的不完善,包括跨境资产证券化操作在内的我国证券化实践开始陷入裹足不前的状况。此后,恰逢次贷危机爆发,无论是国际还是国内的金融监管当局与社会公众对于资产证券化的态度均由鼓励转向审慎观望,导致我国跨境资产证券化尝试陷入停滞,并自此一直停留于初级阶段。由于跨境资产证券化在我国尚处于起步探索阶段,目前尚未制定单独的立法予以专门规范,在有关资产证券化的法律法规文件中也未作出单独的阐述或规制,相关法律环境的配套尚不尽如人意。在分析上述现状及不足的基础上,作者提出了在近年来人民币国际化进程加速、离岸人民币市场日趋成熟且我国资产证券化再度重启的大背景下,应以离岸人民币资产证券化为切入点,借以探索跨境资产证券化的实践路径,同时建构及完善相关法律法规框架。具体而言,离岸人民币资产证券化是跨境融资市场上兼具离岸融资业务与资产证券化创新双重特点的新产品。在离岸市场开展跨境人民币资产证券化意义重大且具体可行。但是,离岸人民币资产证券化是一种经济现象,更是一整套复杂的法律安排。在跨境交易背景下,牵涉到合同、担保、信托、公司等涉外民商事法律诸多方面的复杂问题,需要在实体法层面出台涵盖境内外操作的证券化专门立法,在冲突法层面进一步补充完善证券化法律适用指引,在程序法层面引入并创新证券化多元化纠纷解决机制,从而完善离岸人民币资产证券化法律框架,将离岸人民币资产证券化的设想转化为现实。
From the legal point of view, cross-border asset securitization refers to a credit-right finance method which restructures credit-right asset with stable future cash flows, such as receivables, by using securitization packing technique, spliting credit-right asset into standardized and unitized securities for sale and circulation in financial market and finally, obtaining funds. The operation of asset securitization and legal framework originated in the U.S.. As a structure finance instrument, it holds complicated transaction structure. During the cross-border operation of securitization, there are many legal divergences in different legal jurisdictions, from regulation, function to value issues. The typical divergence is embodied in establishment and operation of special purpose vehicle(SPV), assignment of underlying asset, risk isolation, issuance and trading of securities, guarantees in securitization process and issue associated with currency conversion and so on. Focusing on legal issues and challenge, this dissertation aims to explore systematic research and develop a sensible legal solution for conflict of laws encountered in cross-border operation of asset securitization.
The whole dissertation contains six chapters. Based on an elaborated discussion on basic theory of cross-border asset securitization in the first chapter, the rest chapters analyze, from simple to complex, cross-border asset securitization transaction structure, main legal conflict, relevant application of law, exploration of uniform substantive private law in this issue, legal issues on carrying out cross-border asset securitization in China.
As the doctrinal foundation of the dissertation, the first chapter introduces the concept and connotation of cross-border asset securitization principles. Two core characteristics of cross-border asset securitization are described. The first one is its functionality of relying on asset credit to arrange structured financing. The second one is the objective existence of legal conflict and the insuperable path to seek private international law solution for the conflict of laws. On this basis, three main driving factors of cross-border asset securitization are summed up:the development and change in financial globalization, the international regulatory capital arbitrage driving factor, financial and legal system divergence of different jurisdictions. Taking into account that the cross-border asset securitization grew out of traditional asset securitization, the author then sorts through asset securitization practice in major international capital markets, analyses the commonness and individuality of asset securitization in U.S., Britain, France, Japan, South Korea and other developed countries. From its development in the real course of economic life and change in legal environment, the author abstracts out historical heritage and legal regulation trajectory of cross-border asset securitization's. Comparing with other traditional way of financing, the author demonstrates the financial innovation and legal system of cross-border asset securitization, and shows international community's legislative effort to adapt to its innovation and to move it forward positively. All of the background description makes good theoretical groundwork for subsequent chapters of this dissertation.
Having discussed the function and characteristics of cross-border asset securitization, analysis of its legal framework, legal conflict and resolution mechanism constitute the core content of subsequent chapters. The second chapter deals with transaction structure of cross-border asset securitization. In legal sense,"cross-border" factor of asset securitization is composed of three aspects, including foreign subject, foreign object and foreign contents. In Chapter Ⅱ, above-mentioned compositions of securitization financing transaction and their legal relationship are elaborated. Firstly, Section I analyzes the concept of major participants such as promoter, SPV, initial debtor and securities investors involved in cross-border asset securitization transactions. In operation of cross-border asset securitization, due to divergence of continental law and common law, the participants not only shows unique characteristic, but also have different legal status, rights and obligations. All of that will have significant impact on the success of cross-border operation. Accordingly, it's necessary to understand and interpret legal issues like:i) types of promoter such as originator and sponsor; ii) different forms of SPV such as special purpose trust and special purpose company; iii) discharged condition of original debtor's settlement obligation and its interest protection mechanism; and iv) specific credit enhancement for investors. Section II discusses legal issues of underlying assets. In special environment of cross-border operation, there is considerable controversy regarding qualified underlying assets in different countries and regions. Starting with characteristics of underlying assets like transferability, certain homogeneity, expectable and stable cash flow and decentralization of source,etc., the author analyzes methods and merits of underlying assets classification in various jurisdictions, then points out that screening standard for underlying assets will be more cautious in terms of cross-border securitization than that of general securitization. This is influenced by the exist of "cross-border" factors and divergence in different legal systems. Then a step forward, the author explores two common categories of underlying assets-the first one is credit assets from commercial banks, the other one is receivables of infrastructure and exporting commodity which are initiated by large multinational companies. Combining with the increasing trend of non-performing assets securitization, from legal perspective, the author also analyzes the necessity and feasibility of carrying out cross-border non-performing asset securitization by international commercial banks. Section Ⅲ focuses on legal issues relating to cross-border transfer of underlying assets. As countries have different views on legal model of transfer of underlying assets, participants have paid great attention to "true sale" problem involved. Therefore, the conflict of laws in "true sale" has been more prominent. In this section, the author explores legal issues relating to four major modes of transfer of assets in cross-border asset securitization, which are trust transfer, debt novation, sub-participation and credit-right assignment. In section Ⅳ, it is pointed out that, due to the difference in legal systems, accounting standards, financial technology development in cross-border asset securitization practice, there is a big divergence on asset-backed securities recognized. Combining with the securities legislation and related jurisprudence in U.S. and other major countries in continental law, issues regarding whether asset-backed securities fall in the range of traditional securities law, whether they are governed by securities act and information disclosure requirement, and how to judge the nature of the asset-backed securities were analyzed.
Chapter three analyzes conflict of laws issues which is faced by cross-border securitization operation, so as to fully display the complex legal status to carry out asset securitization in the context of financial globalization. Section Ⅰ is about the conflict of laws regarding establishment and operation of SPV. Beginning with the comparison of legal norms for the establishment and operation of SPV in different jurisdictions, the authors makes a distinction between special purpose trust and special purpose companies, then explores complex legal issues including acceptability of SPV,"bankruptcy isolation" and "true sale", etc. from perspective of various departments of law such as trust law and corporate law. The author also maintains that, regardless of the use of special purpose trust or special purpose company, SPV of is a legal person with unique identity in cross-border asset securitization. Therefore, it is not a flexible and pragmatic approach to determine the nationality of SPV in traditional way. Section II discusses conflict of laws regarding cross-border transfer of underlying assets. Focusing on credit-right transfer modes which are widely adopted currently, this section discusses legal problems relating to notification of credit-right assignment, legal nature of credit-right assignment, as well as priority under multiple assignment. As regards notification of credit-right assignment, this section analyzes difference in notification form and effectiveness. The difference is embodied in legal provisions of different jurisdiction and based on legal principles of liberalism, notification doctrine and consent doctrine. As regards legal nature of credit-right assignment, distinction of view between common law and continental law countries is analyzes. As far as the priority of multiple assignment is concerned, three modes to determine priority are described respectively, which are transfer priority rule, notification priority rule, and the priority rule in common law. Since the contractual restriction on asset transfer constitutes a great impact on the success of cross-border securitization, the author summarizes three types of practice in domestic law, which stipulate that transfer prohibition clause is invalid, valid and relatively valid. Then, the author points out that, from main-stream legislative and judicial practice in developed countries, it is more inclined to keep transfer restriction rule within bounds in the field of commercial law, so as to facilitate capital circulation and financing operation. Section III is about conflict of laws relating to risk isolation. For the purpose of risk isolation, it is very important to achieve "true sale" in asset transfer link. Beginning with the judgment standards of "true sale", the author discusses the distinction between "true sale" and secured financing according to domestic legislation and jurisprudents. If transaction involved does not meet "true sale" requirement in domestic law, it will be classified as secured financing transaction or transaction with other nature. In other words, it will have a "re-characterization risk". Issues regarding whether a SPV holds security interest on the securitized assets and how to effectively safeguard the security interests, will be dealt with in this section. In order to avoid mistaking "true sale" with "alienation guarantees" existed in continental law countries such as Germany and Japan, the authors also analyzes the difference between ownership composition theory and guarantee composition theory. After that, the author maintains that, to interpret "alienation guarantees" from the perspective of ownership composition theory, is the way to achieve organic integration of two legal systems in cross-border asset securitization. Section IV is about legal conflict of securities issuance and trading. Due to the special financing transaction structure of Cross-border asset securitization, issuance and trading of asset-backed securities are of a significant difference compared with those of normal enterprises. Therefore, from legal conflict perspective, the author explores three aspects of the problem:i) the causes of legal conflict in securities issuance and trading; ii) the major links of asset-backed securities issuance and underwriting; and iii) the types and characteristics of legal conflict in asset-backed securities issuance and trading. Conflict of laws regarding guarantee is dealt with in Section V. This section concentrate on two aspects of legal conflict relating to guarantee, which are conflict of laws associated with security interests of liquidity facility provider and that of credit enhancement. As usage of funds raised by cross-border asset securitization is diversified, Section VI analyzes:i) the causes of foreign exchange problems and the means of prevention; ii) the credit and legal risk of financial derivatives; iii) legal characteristic of the legal conflict relating to foreign exchange. Finally, the author points out that, although the use of financial derivative as a means to hedge currency exchange risk will produce a series of conflict of laws, but since financial derivatives is a transaction based on civil and commercial law system, we can still find relevant legal conflict resolution after studying on a series of comprehensive legal phenomena hidden behind the financial derivatives transactions.
After in-depth discussion of all kinds of conflict of laws, in Chapter Four, the author maintains that, in determining the scope of applicable law, segmentation approach rather than unified approach should be adopted. Subsequently, six major types of conflict of laws in cross-border securitization, including establishment and operation of SPV, transfer of underlying assets, risk isolation mechanism, securities issuance and trading, guarantee and currency exchange, are explored one by one from the perspective of the applications of law. Firstly, application of laws relating to SPV is discussed. Taking into account that the mode of special purpose trust is not recognized in some countries, the mode of special purpose company may be a good choice to avoid the controversy caused. Therefore, the application of laws regarding qualification of special purpose trust, validity of the special purpose trust and its legal rights and obligations are main issues analyzed in this part. Secondly, application of laws regarding underlying assets is analyzed. In this part, the author focuses on issues including transferability of credit-right assets, notification of asset transfer, the legal relationship between assignor and assignee, the legal relationship between assignee and debtor, priority of credit-right asset transfer and so on. Thirdly, application of laws relating to risk isolation is dealt with. Risk isolation mechanism is one of the most sophisticated design in cross-border asset securitization operation. Given that legal provisions regarding the fundamental element of risk isolation mechanism are different in domestic laws, if the conflict of laws can not be resolved through effective applicable law, it will have significant impact on the success of cross-border securitization operation. Thus, in this part, from accounting law to bankruptcy law perspective, the author analyzes the application of laws regarding "true sale" and criteria to judge it, as well as the application of laws associated with SPV "entity merge", which has a closely link with the discussion of "true sale". Fourthly, application of laws regarding issuance and trading of asset-back securities is dealt with. After detailed analysis of application of laws, which includes lex personalis, autonomy of will, lex rei sitae, lex loci actus and "PRIMA" principle, the author points out that "PRIMA" principle has been accepted in securities law legislation in many countries, thereby,"PRIMA" principle is becoming the common principle for choosing applicable law in conflict of securities laws aspect. Fifthly, application of laws relating to guarantee is discussed. The author pays special attention to three main modes of "re-characterization" and how to determine applicable law if the transaction is "re-characterized" as secured finance. The application of laws which is associated with "re-characterization" will have a significant impact on the interest of investors, the author believes that, under "re-characterization" circumstances, the law which is expressly chosen by participants themselves should be prevailed, so as to provide participants-especially investors-relatively stable expectation of interest protection. This part also discusses application of laws regarding security interest of liquidity facility providers as well as that of credit enhancement. Sixthly, application of laws relating to foreign exchange in cross-border asset securitization is dealt with. The author analyzes legal characteristics of financial derivatives, which is a solution to the foreign exchange problem. After that, application of laws relating to financial derivatives in cross-border asset securitization operation is explored. Finally, relationship between the use of financial derivatives and the "public order" reservation is explored.
Chapter Five explores harmonization of substantive private law, which is a possible solution to the conflict of laws of cross-border asset securitization. First of all, the conflict rules is still a essential legal regulation means in dealing with conflict of laws of cross-border asset securitization. However, the conflict rules have insurmountable faultiness. For example, the conflict rules have internal flaws in tackling conflict of laws of cross-border Asset Securitization; there is a lot of inconsistence of legal theory behind the conflict rules in cross-border asset securitization operation; once the applicable law is designated, it will be unreasonable if the corresponding legal system does not have legal norms regulating cross-border asset securitization or disallow the practice. Then a step forward, the author analyzes the feasibility of carrying out international harmonization of substantive private law in cross-border asset securitization. After in-depth study of legislation status and its future development, the author emphasis several views which should be think about carefully in international harmonization process of substantive private law:i) it should be considered in the context of economic and financial globalization; ii) the development of international practice of asset securitization should play an more importance role in the process; iii) the process need to follow changes of international financial markets and business practice of cross-border asset securitization, and, to make consequential amendments to adapt the rapid changes. Finally, as the most important international conventions in adjusting cross-border legal issues relating to asset securitization,"the United Nations International Convention on the Assignment of trade receivables" is described in detail. Specifically, the legislative background, legislative principles, scope of application, main terms of the Convention are analyzed, as well as its impact on the development of cross-border asset securitization. Besides, it is well known that, in U.S. sub-prime debt crisis and subsequent international financial crisis, negative effect of asset securitization bloated and made it the trigger of the financial crisis. After the crisis, international organizations, such as Basel Committee, have carried out discussion on the securitization function, risk characteristics, development trend and constitution of regulatory system. As an important international practice in cross-border asset securitization, Basel Agreement is analyzed in detail. The author maintains that, regulatory capital arbitrage is the driving factor for Basel Committee to concern about supervision of asset securitization. The supervision system was established in the Basel II to extend the objects of supervision, clarify risk exposure type, build securities regulatory framework and define standards of risk transfer of basic asset. In recent years, taking into acount the negative role of asset securitization in international financial crisis, the Basel Committee finished revisions to asset securitization regulation system from six aspects. Although China's securitization regulatory legislation is in alignment with the recent changes of securitization supervision system in Basel Agreement, it can be further perfected by strengthening the systemic risk prevention, paying more attention to asset securitization innovation risk, and making market principle mechanism play a more important role in securitization supervision. Finally, with the review of document and academic analysis, the authors points out that, although conflict of laws of cross-border asset securitization can be solved either by conflict rules or by international harmonization of substantive private law legislation, from the perspective of future trend and the comparison of two kinds of adjusting methods, international harmonization of substantive private law will prevail.
Based on the analysis of domestic legal system, conflict of laws and resolution mechanism of cross-border asset securitization, in Chapter Six, the author focuses on the study of legal system of cross-border asset securitization in China. Back in1980s, China has carried out a number of asset securitization practice with cross-border nature. However, due to the imperfection of supporting legal framework, asset securitization operation (including cross-border asset securitization operation) in China fell into stagnation. With the outbreak of sub-prime crisis, financial regulatory authorities and the public took a more cautious attitude to asset securitization. Since then, cross-border asset securitization in China was stuck in initial stage. As cross-border asset securitization in China is still in exploration stage, there has not yet a separate legislative norm specialized in cross-border asset securitization. The legal environment to support cross-border asset securitization practice is also not satisfactory. After analyzing the status and insufficiency of cross-border asset securitization in China, the authors proposes that, with the acceleration of the internationalization of offshore RMB market and the restart of asset securitization exploration, offshore RMB asset securitization can be the breakthrough point of building legal framework of cross-border asset securitization in China. Specifically speaking, offshore RMB asst securitization is the new product combining characteristic of offshore finance and innovation of asset securitization. With the rapid development of RMB currency internationalization and offshore RMB market, it is not only important and but also possible to launch cross-border RMB asset securitization in offshore RMB market. But the process has to confront obstacle of substantive law, conflict law and procedure law in different levels. Therefore, in substantive law level, legislation specialized for securitization operation need to be stipulated. In conflict law level, guideline for application of laws need to be supplemented. In process law level, innovation to deal with the conflict of laws in securitization should be introduced. All of the revision and perfection will help to optimize the legal framework of offshore RMB Asset Securitization and translate the suggestion into reality.
引文
① Arshad A. Ahmed, "Introducing Asset Securitization to Indonesia:a method in Maddness",19 University of Pennsyvania Journal of International Economic Law,1998,p.826.
② 王小莉：《信贷资产证券化法律制度》,法律出版社2007年版,第2页。
③ 李勇：《关于我国不良资产证券化的初步探讨》,中国财政经济出版社2005年版,第1页。
① 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第5-6页。
② 都雪莹：《跨国资产证券化风险监管法律制度研究》,西南财经大学硕士论文,2009年,第4页。
③ 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第191页。
① 韩德培、肖永平：《国际私法》(第2版),高等教育出版社2007年版,第88页.
② Stiglitz, J., Globalizarea. Sperante si deziluzii, Bucharest, Economic Publishing House,2003, p.97.
① 齐月：《金融全球化与我国金融安全的维护》,《中国城市经济》2012年第3期,第339页。
② 《金融服务协定》(Agreement on Financial Services)是世界贸易组织1997年12月13日谈判达成的协议,其于1999年3月1日生效。协议主要内容为世界贸易组织成员关于金融服务的具体承诺减让表和《服务贸易总协定》第2条豁免清单。
③ 沈庆劫：《监管资本套利的动因与经济效应研究——兼论我国新资本协议实施的启示》,《财经论丛》2010年第6期,第33页。
① Tamar Frankel, "Cross-Border Securitization:Without Law, But Not Lawless",8 Duke Journal of Comparative & Inernational Law,1998. p.475.
② 该机构被简称为“房利美”,其成立于1938年,最早为美国联邦政府机构,1968年改为私营公司,其主要功能是通过向贷款机构购买政府担保的抵押贷款以推动抵押贷款的投资。2008年,因为在次贷危机中开展过多的高风险抵押贷款投资而陷入困境,后由美国政府代为接管。
③ 扈企平：《资产证券化理论与实务》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第33-34页。
① 李健男、李传宏：《涉外资产证券化的若干法规问题》,《金融理论与实践》2005年第1期,第47页。
② 汪利娜：《次级贷款成因详解及警示》,《经济观察报》,2008年2月25日。
③ 同上。
① 弗兰克·J·法博兹、莫德·休亨瑞编,王松奇、高广春、史文胜译：《欧洲结构金融产品手册》,中国金融出版社2006年版,第4页。
② 同上。
① 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第35-36页。
② 同上
③ 《巴塞尔协议I》由巴塞尔委员会于1988年7月通过。
④ 刘丰、任晓燕：《国有商业银行不良资产证券化的法律障碍分析》,《邢台学院学报》2008年第9期,第39页。
① 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第35-36页。
② 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第41页。
③ 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第61页。
① 同上。
② 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第43页。
③ 王志诚：《日本资产证券化的法律构架与启发——兼论我国金融资产证券化之立法取向》,《法学集刊》2001年第2期,第210页。
④ 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第44页。
① Steven L. Schwarcz, "The universal language of international securitization",12 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Spring 2002, p.285.
① 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第40-41页。
② 在证券化市场上,做市商通常由具有较强实力与信誉的证券经营法人担任,其通过不断地向投资者报出特定证券的买卖价格,并在该价位接受投资者买卖要求且以自有资金进行交易,从而保持证券产品在市场上的流动性。
③ 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第173-174页。
① 韩德培：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第204页。
① 参见日本《资产流动化法》第142条。
② 参见日本《资产流动化法》第66条。
③ 参见日本《资产流动化法》第65、78条。
④ 参见日本《资产流动化法》第75、84、77条。
① 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第123-125页。
② 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第46页。
① OECD/John K. Thompson, Securitization:an International Perspective,1995, p.26.
② 货币掉期是利用掉期交易双方在不同金融市场上所拥有的差异化优势,根据市场行情来订立衍生交易合约,约定在一定时期内交易双方就金融资产或负债进行的相互交换。
③ 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第26页。
① 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第176页。
② 王小莉：《信贷资产证券化法律制度》,法律出版社2007年版,第9页。
③ 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第11页。
① 朱怀念：《国际项目融资法律问题研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版,第3页。
See The Arkin [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep.283,310-311 (Q.B).
② 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第41页。
① Debora L. Therrdy, "Loan Participation-Sales or Loans? Or Is That The Question?" 68.Oregon Law Review,1989, p.649,652.
See Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Manufactures(1900) Ltd. (1902) 2 KB 660, p.668.
See Law of Property Ac,1925,15 & 16 Geo.5, ch.20,136 (Eng.)
① 许多奇：《资产证券化中的债权让与法律问题》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第1期,第102页。
② The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Structured Financing Techniques,50 Business Law,1995, p.527,534.
① 陈肇强：《试论我国资产证券化运作的法律问题》,《上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2003年第2期,第36-37页。
② 唐子丽：《美国证券法(英美法案例精选系列丛书》,对外经济贸易大学出版社2005年版,第32-48页。
① 李宁：《资产证券化信托研究》,天津财经大学硕士论文,2008年,第19页。
① 谢永江：《资产证券化特定目的机构研究》,中国政法大学博士论文,2004年,第88-89页。
② 同上。
③ Peter J. Lahny IV, "Asset Securitization:A Discussion of the Traditional Bankruptcy Attacks and an Analysis of the Next Potential Attack, Substantive Consolidation",9 American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review,2001, pp.815-816.
① 梁志峰：《资产证券化的风险管理——从制度经济学角度的透视》,经济管理出版社2008年版,第104-105页。
② 同上。
是你 Phillip I. Blumberg, The Law of Corporate Groups:Substantive Law, Little Brown and Company,1987, pp. 628-630.
① 肖永平：《国际私法原理》,法律出版社2007年版,第66页。
② 国际上知名的“避税天堂国家”有列支敦士登、安道尔、摩洛哥、开曼群岛、百慕大、巴哈马、荷属安的利斯等。
① Bailey, "Assignments of Debts in England from the Twelfth to the Twentieth Century",471 L. Q. Rev.,1931, p.516,516-520; "Assignments of Debts in England from the Twelfth to the Twentieth Century",48 L. Q. Rev.,1932, p.248,540-547.
② See Law of Property Act,1925,15 & 16 Geo.5, ch.20, §136 (Eng.)
① 梅仲协：《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版,第286页。
② 黄斌：《国际保理若干法律问题研究》,清华大学硕士论文,2004年,第86页。
③ [英]A.L.科宾著,王卫国等译：《科宾论合同》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第333-335页。
① 美国统一商法典§2-210(2)。
① [德]海因·克茨：《欧洲合同法(上册)》,周忠海、李居迁、宫立云译,法律出版社2001年版,第398页。
② 何宝玉：《英国合同法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第260-261页。
③ 陈卫佐译：《德国民法典》,法律出版社2004年版,第1220页。
④ 同上。
① 董京波：《资产证券化中资产转让法律问题研究》,知识产权出版社2009年版,第92页。
① See Steven L. Schwarcz,"The Impact of Bankruptcy Reform on 'True Sale' Determination in Securitization Transactions",7 Fodham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law,2002 symposium issue, pp.353-354.
② 995 F.2d 948 (10th Cir 1993).
③ 《开展abs法律障碍》,海事诉讼文书_专题栏目,http://www.xchen.com.cn/zuanti/hsssws/391178.html.
① 中国人民银行金融市场司编：《中国资产证券化：从理论走向实践》,中国金融出版社2006年版,第320-324页。
① See Robert Palace & Bell Clifford Chance, Legal and Tax Law, in International securitization, IFR,1992, pp. 115-116.
① 顾长浩：“论日本的让渡担保制度”,载梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》(第10卷),法律出版社1998年版。
② [德]罗伯特·霍恩、海因·科茨、汉斯·G莱塞：《德国民商法导论》,楚建译,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第205-206页。
① 董安生：《国际货币金融法》,中国人民大学出版社1999年版,第140-144页。
① 流动性便利在巴塞尔银行监管委员会制定的《流动性风险计量、标准和监测的国际框架》(Basel Committee on Banking Supervision——International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring)中被提及,其实质可被理解为一种未来的放款承诺。
① The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Structured Financing Techniques,50 Business Law,1995, p.527,551.
① 徐娜娜：《论金融衍生工具的监管机制》,《当代法学论坛》2010年第1辑,第246页。
② 沈群：《金融衍生品对企业财务与经营业绩的影响》,厦门大学博士论文,2007年,第10页。
① 路透社编：《金融衍生工具导论》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第150页。
② 顾功耘：《金融衍生工具的法律规制》,北京大学出版社2007年版,第54页。
① 熊燕：《浅析涉外民事案件的识别问题——兼评<涉外民事关系法律适用法>第8条》,《仲裁研究》2011年第2期,第15页。
② 韩德培：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第126页。
① 王艳萍：《信托关系法律适用的一般原则》,《皖西学院学报》2005年第21卷第3期,第70-72页。
① 莫初明：《西部开发中基础设施资产证券化法律问题研究》,中央民族大学硕士论文,2005年,第25页。
② 杨坤：《住房抵押贷款证券化的若干法律问题》,华东政法学院硕士论文,2001年,第31页。
③ 许多奇：《资产证券化中的债权让与法律问题》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第1期,第102页。
① Deicy & Morris,The Conflict of Laws,10#ed.,London:Stevens & Sons Limited,1980,p.684.
① See RP. Meagher Q.C./W. M. C. Gummon (Ed), Jocob's Law of Trusts in Australia,5th ed., Butterworths,1986, p. 715.
① 江平：《中华人民共和国合同法精解》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第67页。
② 何敏：《我国专利资产证券化若干法律问题研究》,暨南大学硕士论文,2009年,第21页。
① 周林彬：《比较合同法》,兰州大学出版社1989年版,第291页。
② 刘少林：《跨国资产证券化法律问题研究》,大连海事大学硕士论文,2009年,第25页。
③ 何敏：《我国专利资产证券化若干法律问题研究》,暨南大学硕士论文,2009年,第21页。
① 董京波：《资产证券化中的将来债权转让制度研究》,《中国政法大学学报》2009年第1期,第118-119页。
② 李双元：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》(上册),北京大学出版社2002年版,第382页。
③ 日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》(中文版),世界知识出版社1985年版,第748页。
④ Deicy & Morris,The Conflict of 10th ed.,London:Stevens & Sons Li mited,1980,p.747.
① 方兴顺：《跨国资产证券化法律适用问题研究》,华东政法学院硕士论文,2005年,第24-25页。
① R. H. Graveson, Conflict of Laws, Private International Law,7th ed., London:Sweet & Maxwell,1974, p.454.
① 梁毅翔：《“约因”理论在全球电子商务中价值之研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2001年,第63页。
① 梁毅翔：《“约因”理论在全球电子商务中价值之研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2001年,第62页。
② 方兴顺：《跨国资产证券化法律适用问题研究》,华东政法学院硕士论文,2005年,第25页。
① 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第268页。
② [1998]1W.L. R.1035.
② [1998]1W. L. R.1035, pp.1042-1043.
④ Jabbour v. Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property[1954] 1 W. L. R.139, p.146.
② 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第270页。
① [英]莫里斯：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》,李双元等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第855页。
① 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第264页。
① 赵静：《资产支持证券的监管制度研究》,华东政法大学博士论文,2010年,第63页。
② 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第146页。
① 韩德培：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第285页。
① 张庆元：《国际私法中的国籍问题研究》,法律出版社2010年版,第58-63页。
② See Rule 152(1),Dicey & Morris.op cit.at pp.1101-1103.
③ See Rule 153,Dicey & Morris.op.c.t.at pp.1105-1109.
① 陈卫佐：《比较国际私法》,法律出版社2012年版,第145页。
① [英]莫里斯：《戴西与莫里斯论冲突法》,李双元等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第784-786页。
① 张泽平：《资产证券化的法律制度研究》,华东政法大学博士论文,2007年。
② 同上。
① See U.C.C.§9-102 comm.2.
① 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第57页。
① Jurgen Basedow, Toshiyuki Kono:Legal aspects of Globalization:Conflict of Laws, Internet, Capital Markets, and Insolvency in a Global Economy, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,2000, pp.137-138.
① 肖永平：《国际私法原理》,法律出版社2007年版,第182页。
② 崔建远：《合同法》,法律出版社1997年版,第37页。
① 刘燕、楼建波：《金融衍生交易的法律解释——以合同为中心》,《法学研究》2012年第1期,第63页。
② 同上。
① 谢敏莉、张本照：《跨国资产证券化的理论研究》,《华东经济经济管理》2004年第1期,第146页。
① 黄进：《宏观国际法学论》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第150-153页。
② 同上。
① 车丕照,刘萍：《转让共识——简析<联合国国际贸易中应收款转让公约>》,《国际贸易》2002年第6期,第36页。
① 车丕照、刘萍：《转让共识——简析<联合国国际贸易中应收款转让公约>》,《国际贸易》2002年第6期,第37页。
① 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第9条。
② 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第10条第1款。
③ 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第8条第1款。
① 董京波：《资产证券化中资产转让法律问题研究》,知识产权出版社2009年版,第185页。
② 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第12条。
① 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第17条。
② 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第19条。
① 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第27条。
① Amelia H. Boss, Commercial Calamities:the Future of the Uniform Commercial Code Process in an increasingly International Word,68 Ohio State Law Journal,2007, pp.391-393.
① Spiros V. Bazinas, Multi-Jurisdictional Receivables Financing:UNCITRAL's Impact On Securitization and Cross-border Perfection,12 Duke Journal of Comparative & Inernational Law,2005, p.365.
② 巴曙松、牛播坤：《巴塞尔资本协议中资产证券化监管框架的演变》,《证券市场导报》2004年第9期,第14-15页。
① (美)让·尼凯米亚：《且看资产证券化如何从创新到退化》,《国际融资》2009年第4期,第65-66页。
② 巴曙松、孟之静、孙兴亮：《金融危机后资产证券化的新特征及监管新动态》,《经济纵横》2010年第8期,第24页。
① 吴迪：《巴塞尔协议Ⅲ对于资产证券化监管的完善》,《中国外资》2012年第9期,第224-225页。
① 巴曙松等：《金融危机中的巴塞尔新资本协议：挑战与改进》,中国金融出版社2010年版,第268页。
① 萧凯：《跨国证券交易的国际私法问题》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第211页。
① 谬心毫：《跨境资产证券化私人治理法律问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2010年版,第18页。
② G. Teubner, Global Law without a State, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,1996.
① 何小锋、刘永强：《资产证券化理论及其在中国的实践——对中国一个早期案例的研究》,《学术研究》1992年第2期,第23-28页。
② 李曜：《资产证券化——基本理论与案例分析》,上海财经大学出版社2001年版,第192-209页。
① 张金若：《发起人金融资产证券化会计问题研究》,厦门大学博士论文,2008年,第78页。
② 彭冰：《资产证券化的法律解释》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第156页。
③ 晓文：《中集集团：国际资本市场上的资产证券化新思路》,《浙江金融》2000年第6期,第4-5页。
① 张辉：《资产证券化浪潮袭来》,《农村金融研究》,2005年第10期,第14页。
② 同上。
[1]韩德培主编：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版。
[2]韩德培主编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》,武汉大学出版社1991年版。
[3]韩德培：《韩德培文选》,武汉大学出版社1996年版。
[4]韩德培：《中国冲突法研究》,武汉大学出版社1993年版。
[5]韩德培、肖永平：《国际私法》(第2版),高等教育出版社2007年版。
[6]韩德培：《国际私法问题专论(研究生教学用书)》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
[7]王铁崖：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
[8]李双元：《中国与国际私法统一化进程》,武汉大学出版社1998年版。
[9]李双元：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》(上册),北京大学出版社2002年版。
[10]黄进主编：《国际私法(高等学校法学教材)》,法律出版社2002年版。
[11]黄进：《中国的区际法律问题研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
[12]黄进：《宏观国际法学论》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,
[13]黄进：《国际私法：案例与资料》,法律出版社2004年版。
[14]中国国际私法学会主办：《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(1998—2007年),北京大学出版社。
[15]肖永平：《中国冲突立法问题研究》,武汉大学出版社1996年版。
[16]肖水平：《国际私法原理》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[17]肖永平：《欧盟统一国际私法研究(欧洲问题研究丛书)》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[18]韩德培、韩健：《美国国际私法(冲突法)导论》,法律出版社1994年版。
[19]江平：《中华人民共和国合同法精解》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
[20]梅仲协：《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[21]崔建远：《合同法》,法律出版社1997年版。
[22]张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版。
[23]巴曙松等：《金融危机中的巴塞尔新资本协议：挑战与改进》,中国金融出版社2010年版。
[24]甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版。
[25]日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》(中文版),世界知识出版社1985年版。
[26]屈广清：《国际私法导论》(高等院校文科教材),法律出版社2003年版。
[27]涂永红、刘柏荣：《银行信贷资产证券化》,中国金融出版社2000年版。
[28]成之德：《资产证券化理论与实务全书》,中国言实出版社2000年版。
[29]彭冰：《资产证券化的法律解释》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
[30]洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
[31]李勇：《关于我国不良资产证券化的初步探讨》,中国财政经济出版社2005年版。
[32]于凤坤：《资产证券化：理论与实务》,北京大学出版社2002年版。
[33]陈大纲：《中国信托法与信托制度创新》,立信会计出版社2004年版。
[34]弗兰克·J·法博兹、莫德·休亨瑞编,王松奇、高广春、史文胜译：《欧洲结构金融产品手册》,中国金融出版社2006年版。
[35]史尚宽：《债法总论》,台湾荣泰印书馆1978年版。
[36]周林彬：《比较合同法》,兰州大学出版社1989年版。
[37]顾功耘：《金融衍生工具的法律规制》,北京大学出版社2007年版。
[38]吴志攀主编：《国际金融法》,法律出版社1998年版。
[39][德]海因·克茨：《欧洲合同法(上册)》,周忠海、李居迁、宫立云译,法律出版社2001年版。
[40]李仁真主编：《欧盟银行法研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[41]陈本寒：《担保物权法比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2003年版。
[42]王闯：《让与担保法律制度的研究》,法律出版社2000年版。
[43]彭冰：《资产证券化的法律解释》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
[44]沈沛、许均华、刘敏：《信贷资产证券化——原理与操作技巧》,中国金融出版社1998年版。
[45]吴德礼：《银行不良资产化解方式方法》,中国金融出版社2001年版。
[46]董安生：《国际货币金融法》,中国人民大学出版社1999年版。
[47]何小锋：《资本市场运作教程》,中国发展出版社2003年版。
[48]章彰：《商业银行信用风险管理》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
[49]陈卫佐：《比较国际私法》,法律出版社2012年版。
[50]英]A.L..科宾著,王卫国等译：《科宾论合同》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
[51]李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版。
[52]王小莉：《信贷资产证券化法律制度》,法律出版社2007年版。
[53]扈企平：《资产证券化理论与实务》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
[54]路透社编：《金融衍生工具导论》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
[55]谬心毫：《跨境资产证券化私人治理法律问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2010年版。
[56]王淑敏：《新型贸易融资的国际私法统一法源研究》,知识产权出版社2006年版。
[57]朱怀念：《国际项目融资法律问题研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[58][德]罗伯特·霍恩、海因·科茨、汉斯·G.莱塞：《德国民商法导论》,楚建译,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版。
[59]《国际公约与惯例国际私法卷》,法律出版社1998年版。
[60]董京波：《资产证券化中资产转让法律问题研究》,知识产权出版社2009年版。
[1]刘燕；楼建波：《金融衍生交易的法律解释——以合同为中心》,《法学研究》2012年第1期。
[2]牟榕：《国际商事合同通则的研究一兼论对中国合同立法之借鉴》,《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(创刊号),法律出版社1998年版。
[3]余坚、王剑铭：《论资产证券化的法规监管》,《金融研究》1999年第2期。
[4]邓旭：《合同法统一化的最新成果——“国际商事合同通则”简介》,《国际商务研究》1996年第3期。
[5]李尚公、沈春晖：《资产证券化的法律问题分析》,《法学研究》2000年第4期。
[6]张锡营、刘念怀：《中国实施资产证券化跨国运作的探讨》,《金融研究》2000年第4期。
[7]何小锋、宋芳秀：《对资产证券化税收制度安排的博弈论分析》,《经济科学》2001年第6期。
[8]胡轩之：《资产证券化及其在我国不良资产处理中的作用》,《复旦民事法学评论》2001年9月第1期。
[9]何小锋、刘永强：《资产证券化理论及其在中国的实践——对中国一个早期案例的研究》,《学术研究》1992年第2期。
[10]来有为：《离岸资产证券化——一项全新的国际融资方式》,《浙江金融》2000年第6期。
[11]郭玉军、甘勇：《论我国资产证券化中特殊目的机构的法律构建》,《武汉大学学报》(社会科学版)(第56卷)2003年第3期。
[12]姚铮等：《我国资产证券化的运作方案与政策设计》,《证券法律评论》(第2卷),法律出版社2002年版。
[13]金鑫：《资产证券化相关法律问题研究》,《中国审计》2003年第5期。
[14]刘丰、任晓燕：《国有商业银行不良资产证券化的法律障碍分析》,《邢台学院学报》2008年第9期。
[15]齐月：《金融全球化与我国金融安全的维护》,《中国城市经济》2012年第3期。
[16]沈庆劫：《监管资本套利的动因与经济效应研究——兼论我国新资本协议实施的启示》,《财经论丛》2010年第6期。
[17]陈肇强：《试论我国资产证券化运作的法律问题》,《上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2003年第2期。
[18]顾长浩：《论日本的让渡担保制度”》,载梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》(第10卷),法律出版社1998年版。
[19]徐娜娜：《论金融衍生工具的监管机制》,《当代法学论坛》2010年第1辑。
[20]熊燕：《浅析涉外民事案件的识别问题——兼评<涉外民事关系法律适用法>第8条》,《仲裁研究》2011年第6期。
[21]王艳萍：《信托关系法律适用的一般原则》,《皖西学院学报》2005年第21卷第3期。
[22]许多奇：《资产证券化中的债权让与法律问题》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第1期。
[23]谢敏莉、张本照：《跨国资产证券化的理论研究》,《华东经济经济管理》2004年第1期。
[24]车丕照,刘萍：《转让共识一简析<联合国国际贸易中应收款转让公约>》,《国际贸易》2002年第6期。
[25]巴曙松、牛播坤：《巴塞尔资本协议中资产证券化监管框架的演变》,《证券市场导报》2004年第9期。
[26](美)让·尼凯米亚：《且看资产证券化如何从创新到退化》,《国际融资》2009年第4期。
[27]巴曙松；孟之静；孙兴亮：《金融危机后资产证券化的新特征及监管新动态》,《经济纵横》2010年第8期。
[28]吴迪：《巴塞尔协议Ⅲ对于资产证券化监管的完善》,《中国外资》2012年第9期。
[29]张辉：《资产证券化浪潮袭来》,《农村金融研究》,2005年第10期。
[30]晓文：《中集集团：国际资本市场上的资产证券化新思路》,《浙江金融》2000年第6期。
[1]Deicy & Morris. The Conflict of Laws,10th ed., London:Stevens & Sons Limited,1980.
[2]Tamar Frankel, Securitization:structured Financing, Financial Assets Pools, and Asset-Baked Securities, Vol.1, Brown and Company,1991.
[3]James A. Rosenthal, Securitization of Credit, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1988.
[4]Christine A. Pavel, Securitization:the Analysis and Development of the Loan-based/Asset Backed Securities Markets, Probus Publish Company,1989.
[5]Theodor Baums & Eddy Wymeersch ed., Asset-backed Securitization in Europe, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,1996.
[6]Jurgen Basedow & Toshiyuki Kono,Legal aspects of Globalization:Conflict of Laws, Internet, Capital Markets, and Insolvency in a Global Economy, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,2000.
[7]Anand K. Bhattacharya & Frank J Fabozzi ed., Asset-backed Securities, Frank J. Fabozzi Associates,1996.
[8]David M. Morris ed., Asset Securitization Handbook, Dow Jones-Irwin,1989.
[9]Frank J. Fabozzi & David P Jacob ed., the Handbook of Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities, Frank J. Fabozzi Associates,1997.
[10]Philip Molyneux, Nidal Shamroukh, Financial Innovation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1999.
[11]David G. Glennie, Eduard C. de Bouter, Rendall D. Luke ed., Securitization, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,1998.
[12]R. H. Graveson, Conflict of Laws, Private International Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell, 1974.
[13]Frank J Fabozzi ed., Issuer Perspectives on Securitization, Frank J Fabozzi Associates,1998.
[14]Frank J Fabozzi ed., Trends in Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities, Frank J Fabozzi Associates,1998.
[15]Julian Walmsley, New Financial Instruments, Asia Law Practice Publishing Ltd.,1998.
[16]Barry Spitz, International Tax Havens Guide, Harcourt Brace & Company,1999.
[17]Frank J Fabozzi ed., Handbook of Structured Financial Products, Frank J Fabozzi Associates, 1998.
[18]Joseph Hu, Basic of Mortgage-backed Securities, Frank J. Fabozzi Associates,1997.
[19]Lamia Obay, Financial Innovation in the Banking Industry:the Case of Asset Securitization, Garland Publishers,2000.
[20]G. Teubner, Global Law without a State, Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd,1996.
[1]Robert F. Kornegay, "Bank Loans as Securities:a Legal and Financial Economic Analysis of the Treatment of Marketable Bank Assets under the securities Acts",40 University of California at Los Angles Law Review,1993.
[2]Tamar Frankel, "Cross-Border Securitization:Without Law, But Not Lawless",8 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,1998.
[3]Peter J. Lahny IV, "Asset Securitization:A Discussion of the Traditional Bankruptcy Attacks and an Analysis of the Next Potential Attack, Substantive Consolidation",9 American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review,2001.
[4]Debora L. Therrdy, "Loan Participation-Sales or Loans? Or Is That The Question?",68 Oregon Law Review,1989.
[5]Spiros V. Bazinas, "Multi-Jurisdictional Receivables Financing:UNCITRAL's Impact On Securitization and Cross-border Perfection",12 Duke Journal of Comparativey & International Law,2005.
[6]The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, "Structured Financing Techniques",50 Business Law,1995.
[7]Edward J Park, "Allowing Japanese Banks to Engage in Securitization:Potential Benefits, Regulatory Obstacles, and Theories for Reform",17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law,1996.
[8]Michael S. Gambro & Scott Leichtner, "Selected Legal Issues Affecting Securitization",1 North Carolina Banking Institute,1997.
[9]Joseph C. Shenker & Anthony J. Colletta, "Asset Securitization:Evolution, Current Issues and New Frontiers",69 Texas Law Review,1991.
[10]Steven L. Schwarcz, "Enron and the Use and Abuse of Special Purpose Entities in Corporate Structures",70 University of Cincinnati Law Review,2002.
[11]Steve Curtis, "a Practical Guide to the New FSA Rules for Securitizations and loan Transfers", 14 Journal of International Banking Law,1999.
[12]Steven L. Schwarcz, "The universal language of international securitization",12 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,2002.
[13]Richard C. Gerwat, "Channel Islands", Securitization yearbook 1999, a special IFLR (International Financial Law Review) Supplement.
[14]Laura Stuart, "Revisions to FSA Guide:Securitizations and Loan Transfers",15 Journal of International Banking Law,2000.
[15]Denis Petkovic, "New Structures:'Whole Business' Securitization of Project Cash Flow"s,15 Journal of International Banking law,2000.
[16]Luc Rentmeesters & Pierre Tallot, "France", Securitization Yearbook 2000, a special IFLR (International Financial Law Review) Supplement.
[17]Arshad A. Ahmed, "Introducing Asset Securitization to Indonesia:a Method in Madness",19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law,1998.
[18]Luc Rentmeesters & Pierre Tallot, "France Regaining the Momentum, Unlocking the Potential", Securitizaiton Yearbook 2002, a special IFLR (International Financial Law Review) Supplement.
[19]Thomas W. Albrecht & Sarah J. Smith, "Corporate Loan Securitization:Selected Legal and Regulatory Issues",8 Duke Journal of Comparative & International law,1998.
[20]The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, "Structured Financing Techniques",8 Business. Law,1995.
② 王小莉：《信贷资产证券化法律制度》,法律出版社2007年版,第2页。
③ 李勇：《关于我国不良资产证券化的初步探讨》,中国财政经济出版社2005年版,第1页。
① 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第5-6页。
② 都雪莹：《跨国资产证券化风险监管法律制度研究》,西南财经大学硕士论文,2009年,第4页。
③ 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第191页。
① 韩德培、肖永平：《国际私法》(第2版),高等教育出版社2007年版,第88页.
② Stiglitz, J., Globalizarea. Sperante si deziluzii, Bucharest, Economic Publishing House,2003, p.97.
① 齐月：《金融全球化与我国金融安全的维护》,《中国城市经济》2012年第3期,第339页。
② 《金融服务协定》(Agreement on Financial Services)是世界贸易组织1997年12月13日谈判达成的协议,其于1999年3月1日生效。协议主要内容为世界贸易组织成员关于金融服务的具体承诺减让表和《服务贸易总协定》第2条豁免清单。
③ 沈庆劫：《监管资本套利的动因与经济效应研究——兼论我国新资本协议实施的启示》,《财经论丛》2010年第6期,第33页。
① Tamar Frankel, "Cross-Border Securitization:Without Law, But Not Lawless",8 Duke Journal of Comparative & Inernational Law,1998. p.475.
② 该机构被简称为“房利美”,其成立于1938年,最早为美国联邦政府机构,1968年改为私营公司,其主要功能是通过向贷款机构购买政府担保的抵押贷款以推动抵押贷款的投资。2008年,因为在次贷危机中开展过多的高风险抵押贷款投资而陷入困境,后由美国政府代为接管。
③ 扈企平：《资产证券化理论与实务》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版,第33-34页。
① 李健男、李传宏：《涉外资产证券化的若干法规问题》,《金融理论与实践》2005年第1期,第47页。
② 汪利娜：《次级贷款成因详解及警示》,《经济观察报》,2008年2月25日。
③ 同上。
① 弗兰克·J·法博兹、莫德·休亨瑞编,王松奇、高广春、史文胜译：《欧洲结构金融产品手册》,中国金融出版社2006年版,第4页。
② 同上。
① 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第35-36页。
② 同上
③ 《巴塞尔协议I》由巴塞尔委员会于1988年7月通过。
④ 刘丰、任晓燕：《国有商业银行不良资产证券化的法律障碍分析》,《邢台学院学报》2008年第9期,第39页。
① 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第35-36页。
② 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第41页。
③ 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第61页。
① 同上。
② 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第43页。
③ 王志诚：《日本资产证券化的法律构架与启发——兼论我国金融资产证券化之立法取向》,《法学集刊》2001年第2期,第210页。
④ 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第44页。
① Steven L. Schwarcz, "The universal language of international securitization",12 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Spring 2002, p.285.
① 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第40-41页。
② 在证券化市场上,做市商通常由具有较强实力与信誉的证券经营法人担任,其通过不断地向投资者报出特定证券的买卖价格,并在该价位接受投资者买卖要求且以自有资金进行交易,从而保持证券产品在市场上的流动性。
③ 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第173-174页。
① 韩德培：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第204页。
① 参见日本《资产流动化法》第142条。
② 参见日本《资产流动化法》第66条。
③ 参见日本《资产流动化法》第65、78条。
④ 参见日本《资产流动化法》第75、84、77条。
① 李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版,第123-125页。
② 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第46页。
① OECD/John K. Thompson, Securitization:an International Perspective,1995, p.26.
② 货币掉期是利用掉期交易双方在不同金融市场上所拥有的差异化优势,根据市场行情来订立衍生交易合约,约定在一定时期内交易双方就金融资产或负债进行的相互交换。
③ 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第26页。
① 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第176页。
② 王小莉：《信贷资产证券化法律制度》,法律出版社2007年版,第9页。
③ 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第11页。
① 朱怀念：《国际项目融资法律问题研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版,第3页。
See The Arkin [1987] 1 Lloyd's Rep.283,310-311 (Q.B).
② 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第41页。
① Debora L. Therrdy, "Loan Participation-Sales or Loans? Or Is That The Question?" 68.Oregon Law Review,1989, p.649,652.
See Tolhurst v. Associated Portland Cement Manufactures(1900) Ltd. (1902) 2 KB 660, p.668.
See Law of Property Ac,1925,15 & 16 Geo.5, ch.20,136 (Eng.)
① 许多奇：《资产证券化中的债权让与法律问题》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第1期,第102页。
② The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Structured Financing Techniques,50 Business Law,1995, p.527,534.
① 陈肇强：《试论我国资产证券化运作的法律问题》,《上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2003年第2期,第36-37页。
② 唐子丽：《美国证券法(英美法案例精选系列丛书》,对外经济贸易大学出版社2005年版,第32-48页。
① 李宁：《资产证券化信托研究》,天津财经大学硕士论文,2008年,第19页。
① 谢永江：《资产证券化特定目的机构研究》,中国政法大学博士论文,2004年,第88-89页。
② 同上。
③ Peter J. Lahny IV, "Asset Securitization:A Discussion of the Traditional Bankruptcy Attacks and an Analysis of the Next Potential Attack, Substantive Consolidation",9 American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review,2001, pp.815-816.
① 梁志峰：《资产证券化的风险管理——从制度经济学角度的透视》,经济管理出版社2008年版,第104-105页。
② 同上。
是你 Phillip I. Blumberg, The Law of Corporate Groups:Substantive Law, Little Brown and Company,1987, pp. 628-630.
① 肖永平：《国际私法原理》,法律出版社2007年版,第66页。
② 国际上知名的“避税天堂国家”有列支敦士登、安道尔、摩洛哥、开曼群岛、百慕大、巴哈马、荷属安的利斯等。
① Bailey, "Assignments of Debts in England from the Twelfth to the Twentieth Century",471 L. Q. Rev.,1931, p.516,516-520; "Assignments of Debts in England from the Twelfth to the Twentieth Century",48 L. Q. Rev.,1932, p.248,540-547.
② See Law of Property Act,1925,15 & 16 Geo.5, ch.20, §136 (Eng.)
① 梅仲协：《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版,第286页。
② 黄斌：《国际保理若干法律问题研究》,清华大学硕士论文,2004年,第86页。
③ [英]A.L.科宾著,王卫国等译：《科宾论合同》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第333-335页。
① 美国统一商法典§2-210(2)。
① [德]海因·克茨：《欧洲合同法(上册)》,周忠海、李居迁、宫立云译,法律出版社2001年版,第398页。
② 何宝玉：《英国合同法》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第260-261页。
③ 陈卫佐译：《德国民法典》,法律出版社2004年版,第1220页。
④ 同上。
① 董京波：《资产证券化中资产转让法律问题研究》,知识产权出版社2009年版,第92页。
① See Steven L. Schwarcz,"The Impact of Bankruptcy Reform on 'True Sale' Determination in Securitization Transactions",7 Fodham Journal of Corporate and Financial Law,2002 symposium issue, pp.353-354.
② 995 F.2d 948 (10th Cir 1993).
③ 《开展abs法律障碍》,海事诉讼文书_专题栏目,http://www.xchen.com.cn/zuanti/hsssws/391178.html.
① 中国人民银行金融市场司编：《中国资产证券化：从理论走向实践》,中国金融出版社2006年版,第320-324页。
① See Robert Palace & Bell Clifford Chance, Legal and Tax Law, in International securitization, IFR,1992, pp. 115-116.
① 顾长浩：“论日本的让渡担保制度”,载梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》(第10卷),法律出版社1998年版。
② [德]罗伯特·霍恩、海因·科茨、汉斯·G莱塞：《德国民商法导论》,楚建译,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版,第205-206页。
① 董安生：《国际货币金融法》,中国人民大学出版社1999年版,第140-144页。
① 流动性便利在巴塞尔银行监管委员会制定的《流动性风险计量、标准和监测的国际框架》(Basel Committee on Banking Supervision——International framework for liquidity risk measurement, standards and monitoring)中被提及,其实质可被理解为一种未来的放款承诺。
① The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Structured Financing Techniques,50 Business Law,1995, p.527,551.
① 徐娜娜：《论金融衍生工具的监管机制》,《当代法学论坛》2010年第1辑,第246页。
② 沈群：《金融衍生品对企业财务与经营业绩的影响》,厦门大学博士论文,2007年,第10页。
① 路透社编：《金融衍生工具导论》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第150页。
② 顾功耘：《金融衍生工具的法律规制》,北京大学出版社2007年版,第54页。
① 熊燕：《浅析涉外民事案件的识别问题——兼评<涉外民事关系法律适用法>第8条》,《仲裁研究》2011年第2期,第15页。
② 韩德培：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第126页。
① 王艳萍：《信托关系法律适用的一般原则》,《皖西学院学报》2005年第21卷第3期,第70-72页。
① 莫初明：《西部开发中基础设施资产证券化法律问题研究》,中央民族大学硕士论文,2005年,第25页。
② 杨坤：《住房抵押贷款证券化的若干法律问题》,华东政法学院硕士论文,2001年,第31页。
③ 许多奇：《资产证券化中的债权让与法律问题》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第1期,第102页。
① Deicy & Morris,The Conflict of Laws,10#ed.,London:Stevens & Sons Limited,1980,p.684.
① See RP. Meagher Q.C./W. M. C. Gummon (Ed), Jocob's Law of Trusts in Australia,5th ed., Butterworths,1986, p. 715.
① 江平：《中华人民共和国合同法精解》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版,第67页。
② 何敏：《我国专利资产证券化若干法律问题研究》,暨南大学硕士论文,2009年,第21页。
① 周林彬：《比较合同法》,兰州大学出版社1989年版,第291页。
② 刘少林：《跨国资产证券化法律问题研究》,大连海事大学硕士论文,2009年,第25页。
③ 何敏：《我国专利资产证券化若干法律问题研究》,暨南大学硕士论文,2009年,第21页。
① 董京波：《资产证券化中的将来债权转让制度研究》,《中国政法大学学报》2009年第1期,第118-119页。
② 李双元：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》(上册),北京大学出版社2002年版,第382页。
③ 日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》(中文版),世界知识出版社1985年版,第748页。
④ Deicy & Morris,The Conflict of 10th ed.,London:Stevens & Sons Li mited,1980,p.747.
① 方兴顺：《跨国资产证券化法律适用问题研究》,华东政法学院硕士论文,2005年,第24-25页。
① R. H. Graveson, Conflict of Laws, Private International Law,7th ed., London:Sweet & Maxwell,1974, p.454.
① 梁毅翔：《“约因”理论在全球电子商务中价值之研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2001年,第63页。
① 梁毅翔：《“约因”理论在全球电子商务中价值之研究》,中国政法大学硕士论文,2001年,第62页。
② 方兴顺：《跨国资产证券化法律适用问题研究》,华东政法学院硕士论文,2005年,第25页。
① 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第268页。
② [1998]1W.L. R.1035.
② [1998]1W. L. R.1035, pp.1042-1043.
④ Jabbour v. Custodian of Israeli Absentee Property[1954] 1 W. L. R.139, p.146.
② 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第270页。
① [英]莫里斯：《戴西和莫里斯论冲突法》,李双元等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第855页。
① 甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第264页。
① 赵静：《资产支持证券的监管制度研究》,华东政法大学博士论文,2010年,第63页。
② 张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版,第146页。
① 韩德培：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版,第285页。
① 张庆元：《国际私法中的国籍问题研究》,法律出版社2010年版,第58-63页。
② See Rule 152(1),Dicey & Morris.op cit.at pp.1101-1103.
③ See Rule 153,Dicey & Morris.op.c.t.at pp.1105-1109.
① 陈卫佐：《比较国际私法》,法律出版社2012年版,第145页。
① [英]莫里斯：《戴西与莫里斯论冲突法》,李双元等译,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版,第784-786页。
① 张泽平：《资产证券化的法律制度研究》,华东政法大学博士论文,2007年。
② 同上。
① See U.C.C.§9-102 comm.2.
① 洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版,第57页。
① Jurgen Basedow, Toshiyuki Kono:Legal aspects of Globalization:Conflict of Laws, Internet, Capital Markets, and Insolvency in a Global Economy, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,2000, pp.137-138.
① 肖永平：《国际私法原理》,法律出版社2007年版,第182页。
② 崔建远：《合同法》,法律出版社1997年版,第37页。
① 刘燕、楼建波：《金融衍生交易的法律解释——以合同为中心》,《法学研究》2012年第1期,第63页。
② 同上。
① 谢敏莉、张本照：《跨国资产证券化的理论研究》,《华东经济经济管理》2004年第1期,第146页。
① 黄进：《宏观国际法学论》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,第150-153页。
② 同上。
① 车丕照,刘萍：《转让共识——简析<联合国国际贸易中应收款转让公约>》,《国际贸易》2002年第6期,第36页。
① 车丕照、刘萍：《转让共识——简析<联合国国际贸易中应收款转让公约>》,《国际贸易》2002年第6期,第37页。
① 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第9条。
② 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第10条第1款。
③ 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第8条第1款。
① 董京波：《资产证券化中资产转让法律问题研究》,知识产权出版社2009年版,第185页。
② 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第12条。
① 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第17条。
② 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第19条。
① 见《联合国国际贸易应收账款转让公约》第27条。
① Amelia H. Boss, Commercial Calamities:the Future of the Uniform Commercial Code Process in an increasingly International Word,68 Ohio State Law Journal,2007, pp.391-393.
① Spiros V. Bazinas, Multi-Jurisdictional Receivables Financing:UNCITRAL's Impact On Securitization and Cross-border Perfection,12 Duke Journal of Comparative & Inernational Law,2005, p.365.
② 巴曙松、牛播坤：《巴塞尔资本协议中资产证券化监管框架的演变》,《证券市场导报》2004年第9期,第14-15页。
① (美)让·尼凯米亚：《且看资产证券化如何从创新到退化》,《国际融资》2009年第4期,第65-66页。
② 巴曙松、孟之静、孙兴亮：《金融危机后资产证券化的新特征及监管新动态》,《经济纵横》2010年第8期,第24页。
① 吴迪：《巴塞尔协议Ⅲ对于资产证券化监管的完善》,《中国外资》2012年第9期,第224-225页。
① 巴曙松等：《金融危机中的巴塞尔新资本协议：挑战与改进》,中国金融出版社2010年版,第268页。
① 萧凯：《跨国证券交易的国际私法问题》,武汉大学出版社2008年版,第211页。
① 谬心毫：《跨境资产证券化私人治理法律问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2010年版,第18页。
② G. Teubner, Global Law without a State, Dartmouth Publishing Company Limited,1996.
① 何小锋、刘永强：《资产证券化理论及其在中国的实践——对中国一个早期案例的研究》,《学术研究》1992年第2期,第23-28页。
② 李曜：《资产证券化——基本理论与案例分析》,上海财经大学出版社2001年版,第192-209页。
① 张金若：《发起人金融资产证券化会计问题研究》,厦门大学博士论文,2008年,第78页。
② 彭冰：《资产证券化的法律解释》,北京大学出版社2001年版,第156页。
③ 晓文：《中集集团：国际资本市场上的资产证券化新思路》,《浙江金融》2000年第6期,第4-5页。
① 张辉：《资产证券化浪潮袭来》,《农村金融研究》,2005年第10期,第14页。
② 同上。
[1]韩德培主编：《国际私法新论》,武汉大学出版社2003年版。
[2]韩德培主编：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》,武汉大学出版社1991年版。
[3]韩德培：《韩德培文选》,武汉大学出版社1996年版。
[4]韩德培：《中国冲突法研究》,武汉大学出版社1993年版。
[5]韩德培、肖永平：《国际私法》(第2版),高等教育出版社2007年版。
[6]韩德培：《国际私法问题专论(研究生教学用书)》,武汉大学出版社2004年版。
[7]王铁崖：《国际法》,法律出版社1995年版。
[8]李双元：《中国与国际私法统一化进程》,武汉大学出版社1998年版。
[9]李双元：《国际私法教学参考资料选编》(上册),北京大学出版社2002年版。
[10]黄进主编：《国际私法(高等学校法学教材)》,法律出版社2002年版。
[11]黄进：《中国的区际法律问题研究》,法律出版社2001年版。
[12]黄进：《宏观国际法学论》,武汉大学出版社2007年版,
[13]黄进：《国际私法：案例与资料》,法律出版社2004年版。
[14]中国国际私法学会主办：《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(1998—2007年),北京大学出版社。
[15]肖永平：《中国冲突立法问题研究》,武汉大学出版社1996年版。
[16]肖水平：《国际私法原理》,武汉大学出版社2007年版。
[17]肖永平：《欧盟统一国际私法研究(欧洲问题研究丛书)》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[18]韩德培、韩健：《美国国际私法(冲突法)导论》,法律出版社1994年版。
[19]江平：《中华人民共和国合同法精解》,中国政法大学出版社1999年版。
[20]梅仲协：《民法要义》,中国政法大学出版社1998年版。
[21]崔建远：《合同法》,法律出版社1997年版。
[22]张泽平：《资产证券化法律制度的比较与借鉴》,法律出版社2008年版。
[23]巴曙松等：《金融危机中的巴塞尔新资本协议：挑战与改进》,中国金融出版社2010年版。
[24]甘勇：《资产证券化的法律问题比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2008年版。
[25]日本国际法学会编：《国际法辞典》(中文版),世界知识出版社1985年版。
[26]屈广清：《国际私法导论》(高等院校文科教材),法律出版社2003年版。
[27]涂永红、刘柏荣：《银行信贷资产证券化》,中国金融出版社2000年版。
[28]成之德：《资产证券化理论与实务全书》,中国言实出版社2000年版。
[29]彭冰：《资产证券化的法律解释》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
[30]洪艳蓉：《资产证券化法律问题研究》,北京大学出版社2004年版。
[31]李勇：《关于我国不良资产证券化的初步探讨》,中国财政经济出版社2005年版。
[32]于凤坤：《资产证券化：理论与实务》,北京大学出版社2002年版。
[33]陈大纲：《中国信托法与信托制度创新》,立信会计出版社2004年版。
[34]弗兰克·J·法博兹、莫德·休亨瑞编,王松奇、高广春、史文胜译：《欧洲结构金融产品手册》,中国金融出版社2006年版。
[35]史尚宽：《债法总论》,台湾荣泰印书馆1978年版。
[36]周林彬：《比较合同法》,兰州大学出版社1989年版。
[37]顾功耘：《金融衍生工具的法律规制》,北京大学出版社2007年版。
[38]吴志攀主编：《国际金融法》,法律出版社1998年版。
[39][德]海因·克茨：《欧洲合同法(上册)》,周忠海、李居迁、宫立云译,法律出版社2001年版。
[40]李仁真主编：《欧盟银行法研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[41]陈本寒：《担保物权法比较研究》,武汉大学出版社2003年版。
[42]王闯：《让与担保法律制度的研究》,法律出版社2000年版。
[43]彭冰：《资产证券化的法律解释》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
[44]沈沛、许均华、刘敏：《信贷资产证券化——原理与操作技巧》,中国金融出版社1998年版。
[45]吴德礼：《银行不良资产化解方式方法》,中国金融出版社2001年版。
[46]董安生：《国际货币金融法》,中国人民大学出版社1999年版。
[47]何小锋：《资本市场运作教程》,中国发展出版社2003年版。
[48]章彰：《商业银行信用风险管理》,中国人民大学出版社2002年版。
[49]陈卫佐：《比较国际私法》,法律出版社2012年版。
[50]英]A.L..科宾著,王卫国等译：《科宾论合同》,中国大百科全书出版社1998年版。
[51]李景欣：《信贷资产证券化问题研究》,人民邮电出版社2008年版。
[52]王小莉：《信贷资产证券化法律制度》,法律出版社2007年版。
[53]扈企平：《资产证券化理论与实务》,中国人民大学出版社2007年版。
[54]路透社编：《金融衍生工具导论》,北京大学出版社2001年版。
[55]谬心毫：《跨境资产证券化私人治理法律问题研究》,厦门大学出版社2010年版。
[56]王淑敏：《新型贸易融资的国际私法统一法源研究》,知识产权出版社2006年版。
[57]朱怀念：《国际项目融资法律问题研究》,武汉大学出版社2002年版。
[58][德]罗伯特·霍恩、海因·科茨、汉斯·G.莱塞：《德国民商法导论》,楚建译,中国大百科全书出版社1996年版。
[59]《国际公约与惯例国际私法卷》,法律出版社1998年版。
[60]董京波：《资产证券化中资产转让法律问题研究》,知识产权出版社2009年版。
[1]刘燕；楼建波：《金融衍生交易的法律解释——以合同为中心》,《法学研究》2012年第1期。
[2]牟榕：《国际商事合同通则的研究一兼论对中国合同立法之借鉴》,《中国国际私法与比较法年刊》(创刊号),法律出版社1998年版。
[3]余坚、王剑铭：《论资产证券化的法规监管》,《金融研究》1999年第2期。
[4]邓旭：《合同法统一化的最新成果——“国际商事合同通则”简介》,《国际商务研究》1996年第3期。
[5]李尚公、沈春晖：《资产证券化的法律问题分析》,《法学研究》2000年第4期。
[6]张锡营、刘念怀：《中国实施资产证券化跨国运作的探讨》,《金融研究》2000年第4期。
[7]何小锋、宋芳秀：《对资产证券化税收制度安排的博弈论分析》,《经济科学》2001年第6期。
[8]胡轩之：《资产证券化及其在我国不良资产处理中的作用》,《复旦民事法学评论》2001年9月第1期。
[9]何小锋、刘永强：《资产证券化理论及其在中国的实践——对中国一个早期案例的研究》,《学术研究》1992年第2期。
[10]来有为：《离岸资产证券化——一项全新的国际融资方式》,《浙江金融》2000年第6期。
[11]郭玉军、甘勇：《论我国资产证券化中特殊目的机构的法律构建》,《武汉大学学报》(社会科学版)(第56卷)2003年第3期。
[12]姚铮等：《我国资产证券化的运作方案与政策设计》,《证券法律评论》(第2卷),法律出版社2002年版。
[13]金鑫：《资产证券化相关法律问题研究》,《中国审计》2003年第5期。
[14]刘丰、任晓燕：《国有商业银行不良资产证券化的法律障碍分析》,《邢台学院学报》2008年第9期。
[15]齐月：《金融全球化与我国金融安全的维护》,《中国城市经济》2012年第3期。
[16]沈庆劫：《监管资本套利的动因与经济效应研究——兼论我国新资本协议实施的启示》,《财经论丛》2010年第6期。
[17]陈肇强：《试论我国资产证券化运作的法律问题》,《上海交通大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2003年第2期。
[18]顾长浩：《论日本的让渡担保制度”》,载梁慧星主编：《民商法论丛》(第10卷),法律出版社1998年版。
[19]徐娜娜：《论金融衍生工具的监管机制》,《当代法学论坛》2010年第1辑。
[20]熊燕：《浅析涉外民事案件的识别问题——兼评<涉外民事关系法律适用法>第8条》,《仲裁研究》2011年第6期。
[21]王艳萍：《信托关系法律适用的一般原则》,《皖西学院学报》2005年第21卷第3期。
[22]许多奇：《资产证券化中的债权让与法律问题》,《武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》2004年第1期。
[23]谢敏莉、张本照：《跨国资产证券化的理论研究》,《华东经济经济管理》2004年第1期。
[24]车丕照,刘萍：《转让共识一简析<联合国国际贸易中应收款转让公约>》,《国际贸易》2002年第6期。
[25]巴曙松、牛播坤：《巴塞尔资本协议中资产证券化监管框架的演变》,《证券市场导报》2004年第9期。
[26](美)让·尼凯米亚：《且看资产证券化如何从创新到退化》,《国际融资》2009年第4期。
[27]巴曙松；孟之静；孙兴亮：《金融危机后资产证券化的新特征及监管新动态》,《经济纵横》2010年第8期。
[28]吴迪：《巴塞尔协议Ⅲ对于资产证券化监管的完善》,《中国外资》2012年第9期。
[29]张辉：《资产证券化浪潮袭来》,《农村金融研究》,2005年第10期。
[30]晓文：《中集集团：国际资本市场上的资产证券化新思路》,《浙江金融》2000年第6期。
[1]Deicy & Morris. The Conflict of Laws,10th ed., London:Stevens & Sons Limited,1980.
[2]Tamar Frankel, Securitization:structured Financing, Financial Assets Pools, and Asset-Baked Securities, Vol.1, Brown and Company,1991.
[3]James A. Rosenthal, Securitization of Credit, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1988.
[4]Christine A. Pavel, Securitization:the Analysis and Development of the Loan-based/Asset Backed Securities Markets, Probus Publish Company,1989.
[5]Theodor Baums & Eddy Wymeersch ed., Asset-backed Securitization in Europe, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,1996.
[6]Jurgen Basedow & Toshiyuki Kono,Legal aspects of Globalization:Conflict of Laws, Internet, Capital Markets, and Insolvency in a Global Economy, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,2000.
[7]Anand K. Bhattacharya & Frank J Fabozzi ed., Asset-backed Securities, Frank J. Fabozzi Associates,1996.
[8]David M. Morris ed., Asset Securitization Handbook, Dow Jones-Irwin,1989.
[9]Frank J. Fabozzi & David P Jacob ed., the Handbook of Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities, Frank J. Fabozzi Associates,1997.
[10]Philip Molyneux, Nidal Shamroukh, Financial Innovation, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,1999.
[11]David G. Glennie, Eduard C. de Bouter, Rendall D. Luke ed., Securitization, Kluwer Law International Ltd.,1998.
[12]R. H. Graveson, Conflict of Laws, Private International Law, London:Sweet & Maxwell, 1974.
[13]Frank J Fabozzi ed., Issuer Perspectives on Securitization, Frank J Fabozzi Associates,1998.
[14]Frank J Fabozzi ed., Trends in Commercial Mortgage-backed Securities, Frank J Fabozzi Associates,1998.
[15]Julian Walmsley, New Financial Instruments, Asia Law Practice Publishing Ltd.,1998.
[16]Barry Spitz, International Tax Havens Guide, Harcourt Brace & Company,1999.
[17]Frank J Fabozzi ed., Handbook of Structured Financial Products, Frank J Fabozzi Associates, 1998.
[18]Joseph Hu, Basic of Mortgage-backed Securities, Frank J. Fabozzi Associates,1997.
[19]Lamia Obay, Financial Innovation in the Banking Industry:the Case of Asset Securitization, Garland Publishers,2000.
[20]G. Teubner, Global Law without a State, Dartmouth Publishing Company Ltd,1996.
[1]Robert F. Kornegay, "Bank Loans as Securities:a Legal and Financial Economic Analysis of the Treatment of Marketable Bank Assets under the securities Acts",40 University of California at Los Angles Law Review,1993.
[2]Tamar Frankel, "Cross-Border Securitization:Without Law, But Not Lawless",8 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,1998.
[3]Peter J. Lahny IV, "Asset Securitization:A Discussion of the Traditional Bankruptcy Attacks and an Analysis of the Next Potential Attack, Substantive Consolidation",9 American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review,2001.
[4]Debora L. Therrdy, "Loan Participation-Sales or Loans? Or Is That The Question?",68 Oregon Law Review,1989.
[5]Spiros V. Bazinas, "Multi-Jurisdictional Receivables Financing:UNCITRAL's Impact On Securitization and Cross-border Perfection",12 Duke Journal of Comparativey & International Law,2005.
[6]The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, "Structured Financing Techniques",50 Business Law,1995.
[7]Edward J Park, "Allowing Japanese Banks to Engage in Securitization:Potential Benefits, Regulatory Obstacles, and Theories for Reform",17 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law,1996.
[8]Michael S. Gambro & Scott Leichtner, "Selected Legal Issues Affecting Securitization",1 North Carolina Banking Institute,1997.
[9]Joseph C. Shenker & Anthony J. Colletta, "Asset Securitization:Evolution, Current Issues and New Frontiers",69 Texas Law Review,1991.
[10]Steven L. Schwarcz, "Enron and the Use and Abuse of Special Purpose Entities in Corporate Structures",70 University of Cincinnati Law Review,2002.
[11]Steve Curtis, "a Practical Guide to the New FSA Rules for Securitizations and loan Transfers", 14 Journal of International Banking Law,1999.
[12]Steven L. Schwarcz, "The universal language of international securitization",12 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law,2002.
[13]Richard C. Gerwat, "Channel Islands", Securitization yearbook 1999, a special IFLR (International Financial Law Review) Supplement.
[14]Laura Stuart, "Revisions to FSA Guide:Securitizations and Loan Transfers",15 Journal of International Banking Law,2000.
[15]Denis Petkovic, "New Structures:'Whole Business' Securitization of Project Cash Flow"s,15 Journal of International Banking law,2000.
[16]Luc Rentmeesters & Pierre Tallot, "France", Securitization Yearbook 2000, a special IFLR (International Financial Law Review) Supplement.
[17]Arshad A. Ahmed, "Introducing Asset Securitization to Indonesia:a Method in Madness",19 University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law,1998.
[18]Luc Rentmeesters & Pierre Tallot, "France Regaining the Momentum, Unlocking the Potential", Securitizaiton Yearbook 2002, a special IFLR (International Financial Law Review) Supplement.
[19]Thomas W. Albrecht & Sarah J. Smith, "Corporate Loan Securitization:Selected Legal and Regulatory Issues",8 Duke Journal of Comparative & International law,1998.
[20]The Committee on Bankruptcy and Corporate Reorganization of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, "Structured Financing Techniques",8 Business. Law,1995.