|
The anti-deprivation rule (also known as fraud upon the bankruptcy law) is a principle applied by the courts in common law jurisdictions (other than the United States) in which, according to Mellish LJ in ''Re Jeavons, ex parte Mackay'',〔(1873) LR 8 Ch App 643〕 "a person cannot make it a part of his contract that, in the event of bankruptcy, he is then to get some additional advantage which prevents the property being distributed under the bankruptcy laws." Wood VC had earlier observed that "the law is too clearly settled to admit of a shadow of doubt that no person possessed of property can reserve that property to himself until he shall become bankrupt, and then provide that, in the event of his becoming bankrupt, it shall pass to another and not to his creditors." ==General scheme== It arises from the general principle (known as the "rule against repugnancy" in property law) that a grantor may not derogate from his own grant by giving an absolute interest in an asset and then providing for it to be clawed back otherwise than for fair value in stated eventualities, including (but not limited to) bankruptcy and winding up. This is considered to consist of several branches: * General principle * * Anti-deprivation rule * * * "Contracting out" rule * * * "Insolvency-triggered deprivation" rule * * ''Pari passu'' rule ''Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd and Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc'' observed that the general principle consists of two subrules the anti-deprivation rule and the ''pari passu'' rule, which are addressed to different mischiefs and held that, in borderline cases, a commercially sensible transaction entered into in good faith should not be held to infringe the first rule.〔''Belmont Park'', par. 79〕 The relationship between the two rules was expanded upon later by Longmore LJ in ''Lomas v JFB Firth Rixson Inc'': In 2012, the Chancery Division, in assessing the football creditors rule, held that it was valid and did not violate either the anti-deprivation rule or the ''pari passu'' rule. In his judgment, Richards J, relying on ''Belmont Park'', declared:〔(【引用サイトリンク】url = http://www.linklaters.com/pdfs/mkt/london/Football_creditor_rule.pdf ), discussing 〕 : * the anti-deprivation rule applies from the commencement of administration : * the ''pari passu'' principle comes into play only if the purpose of the insolvency procedure is to effect a distribution : * if a transaction has the effect of depriving a company of an asset in order to distribute it among some only of the creditors otherwise eligible to participate in a distribution, it offends both principles : * if the deprivation occurs on the company going into administration, only the anti-deprivation principle will be engaged 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Anti-deprivation rule」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|