School of Law, Chongqing University, Chongqing, China.
Front Public Health. 2022 Nov 9;10:1003330. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.1003330. eCollection 2022.
The assumption of liability for endangering public health has always been a legislative challenge in bankruptcy proceedings. Although it has been theoretically proven that the tort creditor should hold a position higher than that of unsecured creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, both legislation and judicial practice have been found wanting in many countries. China has witnessed large-scale domestic public health incidents where the tort debtor has entered bankruptcy proceedings while the tort claims were being settled. In Changchun Changsheng Biotechnology vaccine incident, to maintain social order and protect the rights and interests of the tort creditor, the Chinese government required the tort debtor to set up a special compensation fund of RMB 500 million and hand it over to a third party for management. This approach was mainly adopted because tort creditors can only participate in the bankruptcy distribution as an unsecured creditor, according to the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of China, and as a result, their rights and interests cannot be guaranteed. In the context of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of China, this approach face predicaments of legitimacy and effectiveness. Moreover, even if the legislators follow scholars' advice and grant the tort creditor priority in bankruptcy proceedings, that would still not be enough to protect the rights and interests of the tort creditor, not to mention the possibility that the tort debtor might follow the example of Johnson & Johnson to avoid liability in practice. In fact, the Chinese government's approach is similar to that of Johnson & Johnson's, but more advisable. The Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of China (Bill of Amendment) will be submitted to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress for preliminary deliberation this year, and the Chinese government's approach to the Changchun Changsheng vaccine case is very likely to be codified. This will resolve the predicaments of legitimacy and effectiveness that the government's current approach is facing and serve as a point of reference for the future revision of U.S. bankruptcy law and the handling of related cases.
危害公共健康的责任承担在破产程序中一直是立法挑战。尽管从理论上证明了侵权债权人在破产程序中应比无担保债权人处于更高的地位,但在许多国家,立法和司法实践都存在不足。中国已经见证了大规模的国内公共卫生事件,即在侵权债务人进入破产程序而侵权索赔正在解决的情况下。在长春长生生物技术疫苗事件中,为了维护社会秩序和保护侵权债权人的权益,中国政府要求侵权债务人设立一个人民币 5 亿元的特别赔偿基金,并交由第三方管理。这种方法主要是因为根据《中国企业破产法》,侵权债权人只能作为无担保债权人参与破产分配,因此他们的权益无法得到保障。在《中国企业破产法》的背景下,这种方法面临着合法性和有效性的困境。此外,即使立法者听从学者的建议,在破产程序中赋予侵权债权人优先权,也不足以保护侵权债权人的权益,更不用说侵权债务人可能会效仿强生公司在实践中逃避责任的可能性了。事实上,中国政府的做法与强生公司类似,但更为明智。《中国企业破产法(修正案)》将于今年提交全国人民代表大会常务委员会进行初步审议,中国政府对长春长生疫苗案的处理方式很可能会被编纂成法典。这将解决政府当前做法所面临的合法性和有效性困境,并为未来美国破产法的修订和相关案件的处理提供参考。