关于民间融资的外文翻译英文.docx

关于民间融资的外文翻译英文.docx

《关于民间融资的外文翻译英文.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《关于民间融资的外文翻译英文.docx（20页珍藏版）》请在冰点文库上搜索。

关于民间融资的外文翻译英文

FINANCINGCIVILLITIGATION

THECASEFORTHEASSIGNMENTANDSECURITIZATION

OFLIABILITYCLAIMS

AndreaPinna

Institutdedroitdesaffairesinternationales

Abstract

Thispaperexaminesthepossibilityoffinancingcivillitigationbywayoftheassignmentofaliabilityclaimtoaninvestor,whichwould“acquire”theclaimandbringaclaimincompensationonitsownnameandbehalf.Thestartingpointoftheresearchistheobservationthatif,intheory,therightforcompensationisconsideredtobeafundamentalright,inpractice,itsimplementationconsiderablylackseffectivenessespeciallyinconsiderationofthefinancialbarriersforaccessingjustice.Thehypotheticalexaminedisthesituationinwhichaninjuredpartyofatortorabreachofcontract（theassignor）assignstoathirdparty（theassignee）itsrightsagainstaliablepartyinexchangeofremuneration.Themainfeatureofthesystemisthattheinjuredpartyreceivescompensationbywayofpaymentofthepricefortheclaimbeforearulingontheliabilityandthemeasureofdamageshavebeenmade.Thereforetheassigneemakesariskybargainbecauseheisnotsurethatthepossibleproceedsderivingfromthelawsuitwillcoveritsinvestment.Thisishoweverprimafacieasoundsystemsincetheassignee,beforeacquiringaclaimandforthedeterminationoftheconsideration,willcarefullyassessthechancestowinthelawsuitandthedamagesthatcouldbeawardedbycourts.Naturally,theconsiderationfortheassignmentaninvestorispreparedtopayislowerthantheamountoftheanticipatedproceedsofthelawsuitsinceitsdeterminationincorporatesboththeriskoflosingthelawsuitandthedifferenceintimebetweenthepaymentofthepriceandtheexpectedgainfrominvestment.Thistechniqueoffinancingcivillitigationhasnotbeenusedinpracticesofar,atleastnotonalargescale.Thisnaturallyraisestwomainquestions.Thefirstoneistodeterminewhethertheassignmentofliabilityclaimsforspeculationpurposesislegallyadmissibleoriscontrarytopublicpolicy.Europeanlegalsystemsaredividedontheissue,whichisshownbyacomparisonbetweenEnglishandFrenchlaw.Eitherdelegelataordelegeferenda,thesecondissueistodeterminewhetherthesystemiseconomicallyviableanddesirable.Theauthortakespositioninfavoroftheassignmentofliabilityclaimsespeciallyasasolutiontotheabsenceofothertechniques,suchasmandatorydamageinsurance,compensationschemesorclassactions,whichalreadyaimatfindinganalternativetothetraditionalwayofseekingcompensationforaninjuredparty,thatistoindividuallyclaimforitincourt.

Oneoftheadvantagesoftheassignmentofliabilityclaimsoverothertechniquesofreceivingcompensationistotechnicallyenabletohaverecoursetofinancialmarketsbythesecuritizationofsuchclaims.Thisfacilitatestheraisingofcapitalforfinancingcivillitigationandallowsthetransferoftheriskrelatedtoliabilityclaimsatlowtransactioncosts.Naturally,the

inconveniencesofthistechniqueoffinancingcivillitigationandofthesecuritizationofclaimsshouldnotbeunderestimated.

1.Introduction

1.1.Thefundamentalvalueoftherightforcompensationanditsimplementation.

TherightforaninjuredpartyofatortiousorcontractualwrongdoingtoreceivecompensationwasgrantedinEuropeafundamentalvalue.TheEuropeanCourtofHumanRightshasindeeddecidedthatacreditfordamagesderivingfromawrongdoing,i.e.aliabilitycreditorliabilityclaim,isagoodforthepurposeofapplicationofProtocol1oftheEuropeanConventionofHumanRights.However,inpractice,theimplementationofthisfundamentalrightisfarfrombeingsatisfactory.Severaltypesoflossesdonotreceivecompensationbecauseofthepracticaldifficultiesandthecostsnecessarytoachieveit.Thetraditionalwayforaninjuredpartytoseekcompensationistobringaclaimdirectlyandindividuallyincourt.Inthelastdecades,legalsystemshavedevelopedalternativemechanismstograntcompensationwithoutexposingtheinjuredpartytotheburdensofalawsuit:

compensationschemeshavebeenimplementedwithregardtoparticulartypesoflosses,theinsurerissometimesobligedtooffertheinjuredpartyacompensationwithouthavingbeensuedorevenhavingbeenrequestedtodoso.Inotherlegalsystems,thelawsuithasbecomeanindustryforlawyerswhoareentitledtoexclusivelyfinancethelawsuitandtoberemuneratedonlyincaseofsuccessontheproceedsofsuchaction,eventhoughthisisnotacommonacceptedruleforEuropeanlegalsystems.Noritisthepossibilityforindividualstobringaclaimalsoonbehalfofalargergroupofvictimsinasimilarsituation,theso-calledclassactions.Wherethesealternativesdonotexist,whichcorrespondstothemostcommonsituation,thecreditorofthecompensationisalwaysobligedtofinancethelawsuitwhereasthepublicmechanismsaimingatgrantingtheaccesstojusticeareclearlyinsufficientandreservedeithertospecificlawsuitsortoindividualsinparticularfinancialdistress.

1.2.Theconsiderationsfordecidingwhethertobringaclaimornot.

Asaconsequenceofthis,thedecisiontobringaclaimforcompensationistakeninconsiderationofotherelementsthanthemeremeritoriouscharacteroftheclaim.Indeed,theplaintiff,winningalawsuit,canonlyinfewlegalsystems,suchasEngland,beawardedofasumcorrespondingtotherealcostsspentforthelitigationasadditionaldamages.Whereasinmanylegalsystemsthisisnotconsideredtobeaheadofloss,inothers,courts?

practicehaslimitedthecompensationtoaverylowsum,incomparablewiththeeffectivepricepaidforhavingthe

plaintiff?

srightsenforced.Theobserverthereforefacesanunusualsituationwheretherightsofthevictimsarenowadaysparticularlysophisticated,whereasthetechniquesfortheirprotectionhavehardlyevolvedsinceseveralcenturies.

1.3.Theexampleofthecompensationofthelossesderivingfrombreachofcompetitionlaw.

ThedebaterelatedtotherecentinitiativeoftheEuropeanCommissiononDamagesActionsforBreachofECAntitrustRules7hasshownthisparadoxandincoherenceofEuropeanlegalsystems:

extremelyprotectiveofthevictimsintheorythesystemisprofoundlyinefficientin

practice.TherecentconvictionofthethreeFrenchmobilephonesoperatorsforillegalundertakingtoseveralmillionsofpublicpenalties8hasshowntheimpossibilityfortheconsumers–thedirectvictims–ofthisillegalbehaviortobegrantedcompensationforthelosssuffered.Intheabsenceofaclassaction-likemechanismtoaggregatethousandsofsmallindividualclaims,almostnoindividualclaimswerebroughtandconsumerassociationcouldnotprovideasurrogatecompensationmechanismsincetheycannotfreelyadvertisetohaveconsumeradheretotheclaimtheybring.9Nowadays,publicenforcementofcompetitionlawistheonlyeffectiveproceedingavailableandprivateenforcementisextremelylimitedinpractice.Theexampleofthemechanismsforprivateenforcementofcompetitionlawshowsmorebroadlythateachcitizenisownerofaportfolioofcreditsindamagesthathecannot,inpractice,takeadvantageof,intheexpectationthattheprescriptionplaysitsinexorablerole.

1.4.Thehypothesisofassigningdamagesclaims.

Fromthisremarkandintheactualabsenceofefficientalternatives,onecouldexploretheideaofmakingamoreusefulemploymentofthesecreditsindamagesbysimplysellingthemtosomeonewhoiswillingandabletomakeamoreefficientuseofthem.Aliketraditionalcreditsofaliquidatedsumofmoney,whichcanbefreelyassigned,areunliquidatedclaimssusceptibleofassignment?

Primafacie,thistechniquepresentsseveraladvantages.Ifsuchadamagesclaimcouldbeofinterestforaninvestor,theoriginalowneroftheliabilityclaim–thevictim–,byassigningit,willnothavetopersonallyfinancethelawsuitnortobeartheriskoflosingthelegalaction.Moreover,theassignorwillreceivecompensationforitslossfasterthaninthetraditionalcourseofaction,i.e.byindividuallyclaimingdamages.10Indeed,thepricepaidbytheinvestorasconsiderationfortheassignmentwouldreplacethecompensationforthelossthatwouldbejudiciallyawarded.Thepricewouldbenecessarylowerthantheamountofthedamages,butitwouldbepaidinexchangeoftheabsenceofanycostandriskforthejudicialprocedureandwouldbegiventothevictimbyanticipation.Thisanticipationseemstobesusceptibleofincitingtheinjuredpartiestoassigntheirdamagesclaimsandtheinvestortospeculateonthechronologicaldifferencebetweentheinvestmentandtheexpectedgainfromthisinvestment.Therefore,theintrinsicworthoftheassignmentofliabilityclaimsappeartoberealwithcomparisontothetraditionalmechanismsofcompensationofacontractualortortiousloss.

1.5.Thecomparisonwithothertechniquesforseekingcompensation.

Threemaintechniquesforseekingcompensationofalossareofferedbylegalsystems.Traditionally,thevictimalwayshastherighttoindividuallyclaimforcompensationincourt,seekinganawardfordamages.Alternatively,insomecases,privateorpubliccompensationschemesareestablishedinordertograntcompensationwithoutrequiringaliabilityclaimtobebroughttocourtagainstthewrongdoer.Indeed,themainroleofacompensationschemeistograntcompensationtoaninjuredpartyevenifnowrongwascommitted.However,practicehasshownthatcompensationschemesalsointervenewhenawrongdoercanbeidentifiedandthataftercompensatingthevictim,theschemeissubrogatedintherightsofthe