大規模不法行為クラスアクションの倒産手続における管轄権

スポンサーリンク

概要

• 論文の詳細を見る

• While there have been a growing number of mass tort class actions in the last two decades, the defendant attempts to resolve mass tort class action in the bankruptcy law area. The defendant company filed for Chapter 11 reorganization protection. This trend began in 1982 and after that other companies sought protection from asbestos claims and products liability suits. Once a defendant in mass tort litigation files for bankruptcy, all the pending action is automatically stayed. The automatic stay centralizes the defendant's state and federal mass tort case into a single federal district court. The bankruptcy filing and docketing in federal forum, first of all, raise a question of jurisdiction among federal courts. 28 U.S.C. § 151 refers to a bankruptcy judge and bankruptcy court as a unit of the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b) (5), personal injury claims and wrongful death actions against bankrupt debtors can be consolidated in the district in which bankruptcy protection is sought or the district in which the claims arose. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1334 (b), the district courts shall have original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under the Bankruptcy Code or arising in or related to cases under the Bankruptcy Code. The term district court appearing in § 157 and § 1334 refers to the district court and bankruptcy court. And bankruptcy cases may be decided by either a bankruptcy judge or a federal district judge. There is therefore constant tension between the exercise and non-exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.

• 京都文教大学の論文

著者

• 楪 博行

  京都文教大学人間学部現代社会学科

関連論文

• 州裁判所におけるクラスアクション
• 大規模不法行為クラスアクションの倒産手続における管轄権
• クラスアクション公正法(Class Action Fairness Act)の成立と大規模不法行為訴訟への影響
• アメリカにおける奴隷制度とその変遷 : 植民地奴隷法制の形成とその根拠
• クラスアクションの成立を否定する連邦裁判所判決の州裁判所への争点効 : In re Bridgestone/Firestone 判決を中心に

スポンサーリンク