中美知识产权证券化的基本情况及特殊目的机构对比——以中国首两例知识产权证券化案例为视角  

Characteristics of SPV of Chinese First Two Products of Intellectual Property Securitization

作　　者：刘瑛 刘思海 Liu Ying;Liu Sihai(Wuhan University,Wuhan 430072,China)

机构地区：[1]武汉大学国际法研究所/法学院,湖北武汉430072

出　　处：《河南师范大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2021年第1期55-66,共12页Journal of Henan Normal University(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

摘　　要：自2019年中国出现首两例知识产权证券化产品以来,知识产权证券化在中国证券市场受到极大的关注。中国首两例知识产权证券化案例均采用相应的措施来保障特殊目的机构实现真实销售和破产隔离的功能。但事实上,由于立法的缺失,这些措施并不足以保证该功能的实现。以中国首两例知识产权证券化案例为例子,对比中美两国知识产权证券化流程以及特殊目的机构在证券化过程中遇到的真实销售和破产隔离机制的法律问题,可以得出,中国知识产权资产证券化的发展需要在借鉴美国相关判例的基础上,依靠证监会、银监会等资产证券化主管部门,制定关于资产证券化特殊目机构的部门规章,并将知识产权证券化独立成章。SPVs of Chinese first two products of intellectual property securitization are special asset-backed scheme specially designed for corporate asset securitization by China Securities Regulatory Commission.Unlike traditional SPV,special asset-backed scheme actually is a series of contracts not an entity.Because of lack of law and regulations,using special asset-backed scheme in intellectual property securitization transaction does not meet requirements of bankruptcy remote and true sale.But advantages,such as fewer requirements for establishment,of special asset-backed scheme still make it popular in China.US has over 20 years of experience in intellectual property securitization and in judicial practice has accumulated a large amount of cases about bankruptcy remote and true sale,which provide reference to future legislation of true sale and bankruptcy remote in China.

关 键 词：特殊目的机构 真实销售 破产隔离 知识产权证券化 

分 类 号：DF962[政治法律—国际法学]