Примеры использования Assignor's creditors на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Without prejudice to the rights of the insolvency administrator and the assignor's creditors.
Priority between an assignee and the assignor's creditors is governed by the law of the State in which the assignor is located.
In the context of an agreement between the assignor and the debtor,“third parties” were the assignee, the assignor's creditors and the insolvency administrator.
One concern was that there was a need to protect the assignor's creditors from the appearance of wealth that the holding of the account by the assignor would inevitably create.
This means that an assignment will be ineffective as against the sovereign debtor,while it remains effective as against the assignor and the assignor's creditors.
The question was raised whether reference should be added to the rights of the insolvency administrator or the assignor's creditors that should be preserved on the grounds that they were based on mandatory law.
Without prejudice to the rights of several assignees obtaining the same receivables from the same assignor, the insolvency administrator and the assignor's creditors.
In response, it was observed that the reference in draft article 25(1)to“the assignor's creditors” was sufficient to encompass conflicts with inventory financiers and suppliers of goods on credit.
Paragraphs(3) to(5) of article 24 apply to a conflict of priority arising between an assignee andthe insolvency administrator or the assignor's creditors with respect to proceeds.”.
With regard to conflicts of priority between the assignee and the assignor's creditors, the suggestion was made that they should be governed by the law of the country in which the assignor had its place of business.
Paragraphs(3) to(5) of article 25 apply to aconflict of priority arising between an assignee and the insolvency administrator or the assignor's creditors with respect to whatever is received.
Another concern was that such a rule would deprive the assignor's creditors, including privileged creditors such as employees, of an important asset, on which they could rely in order to obtain payment.
In response, it was stated that, in the case of an anti-assignment clause,the assignment would be effective as against the assignor and the assignor's creditors, while it would be ineffective as against the debtor.
The Working Group noted that,in paragraph(2), the term“assignor's creditors” had been substituted for the term“insolvency administrator”, since: in some legal systems, the insolvency administrator did not become the holder of the rights of the creditors; and, in some reorganization proceedings, there might be no insolvency administrator.
In an insolvency proceeding relating to the assets of the assignor, priority between the assignee and the assignor's creditors is governed by the law of the State in which the assignor is located.
The concern was expressed, however,that that proposal went beyond its intended purpose of protecting debtors of financial receivables to the extent that it would unnecessarily result in an anti-assignment clause invalidating an assignment even as between the assignor or the assignor's creditors and the assignee.
After discussion, the Working Group decided that paragraph(1)should be revised to provide that competing rights of the assignee and the assignor's creditors should be governed by the law of the country in which the assignor had its place of business.
However, it was said, the rest of the provisions of the draft Convention would apply e.g., draft article 10(1), and,as a result, the assignment would be effective as between the assignor or the assignor's creditors and the assignee.
Also covered are conflicts, in the case of subsequent assignments, between any assignee and the assignor's creditors or the administrator in the insolvency of the assignor no conflict of priority can arise as between assignees in a chain of assignments.
As to which specific parties might be covered by the notion of“third parties”, it was explained that,typically, in the context of an agreement between the assignor and the assignee,“third parties” were the debtor, the assignor's creditors and the insolvency administrator.
Paragraphs(3) to(5) of article 25 apply to a conflict of priority arising between an assignee and the assignor's creditors or the insolvency administrator with respect to whatever is received in payment[, or other discharge,] of the assigned receivable.
It was noted that the main purpose of paragraph(3)was to establish a specific debtor-protection rule, according to which in the case of a contractual limitation to assignment, while the assignment would be effective as between the assignor(and the assignor's creditors) and the assignee, it would be ineffective as against the debtor.
Priority among several assignees of the same receivables from the same assignor and between the assignee and the assignor's creditors or the insolvency administrator with respect to whatever is received in payment[, or other discharge,] of the assigned receivable is determined as follows.
It was noted that paragraph(5)was intended to reflect the principle of non-discrimination against Convention-assignees by ensuring that assignees asserting rights under the law of the State in which the assignor was located would have no less rights as against the assignor's creditors or the insolvency administrator than any assignee asserting rights under law applicable outside the draft Convention.
In response to that concern, it was observed that, the assignor's estate having been enriched by the credit advanced by the assignee,it would be inappropriate to allow the assignor's creditors to obtain payment of the assigned receivables, since such an approach would result in a situation in which the assignor's creditors would have unduly benefited if the assignor became insolvent.
Until the establishment of a registration system as provided in article 1 of the annex to this Convention, priority between an assignee andthe insolvency administrator or the assignor's creditors will be governed by[paragraph(3) of this article] the law determined in accordance with paragraphs(2) and(3) of article 28.
With regard to paragraph(4), the Working Group noted that it was intended to preserve rights of the insolvency administrator or the assignor's creditors in a proceeding opened in a State other than the State of the assignor's location“secondary insolvency proceeding”.
As to the contents of the private international law rule to be included in draft article 24,the Working Group agreed that competing rights of the assignee and the assignor's creditors should be distinguished from competing rights of the assignee and the administrator in the insolvency of the assignor. .
In support of that suggestion, it was stated that such an approach would provide the desirable degree of certainty, since the same law would apply irrespective of the country in which the assignor's creditors might obtain a court judgementordering the attachment of the assigned receivables or of the country in which enforcement of the claims of the assignor's creditors might be sought.
In addition, it was stated that such a rule would benefit the assignor in that the assignor would be able to obtain financing without disrupting its business relationships with its clients; the assignor's creditors, to the extent that the assignor's business would grow; and the debtor, to the extent that the assignor would be more likely to extend better credit terms to the debtor.