引言

近年来，伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化，融资租赁成为了争议高发领域，并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例，根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》，在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中，融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三，同比上升65.93%，争议标的金额则位居第二，仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中，对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]

本篇中，我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验，从程序及实体两个角度，分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称“《民法典》”）生效前的存量项目中，出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中，我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭，进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。

一、 “困局”：租赁物被承租人擅自处分，出租人的物权保障岌岌可危

The administrators of Lehman Brothers International (Europe) have been intending to propose a scheme of arrangement under the English Companies Act to enable them to distribute several billions of dollars of assets held on trust by the company in the face of difficulties in establishing who was entitled to the trust assets; in particular, they had not received responses from all potentially interested clients, could not rely on the accuracy of the company's records and had not received all the information requested from sub-custodians and other intermediaries.

In Josef Syska (Administrator of Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) and Elektrim SA (in bankruptcy) v Vivendi Universal SA & Others [2009] EWCA Civ 677 the main question to be decided by the Court of Appeal was whether, when an arbitration is proceeding in one Member State of the European Union, in this case the UK, and one of the parties to the arbitration becomes insolvent in another Member State, in this case Poland, the consequences of that insolvency, in so far as they affect the arbitration, are to be determined by the law of the Member State where the insolvency procee

Two D&O insurers have asked the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota to lift an automatic stay in a bankruptcy proceeding pending against their insureds so that the insurers can pursue their coverage defenses as counterclaims against the insureds in a pending declaratory judgment action.In Re Petters Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 08-45257 (Bankr. D. Minn.).

InDornoch Ltd & Ors v Westminster International & Ors [2009] EWHC 1782 (Admiralty) Mr Justice Tomlinson held that the sale by Westminster International (Westminster) of the wreck of a vessel, the Fariway for the sum of 1000 Euros to a related company was a transaction at an undervalue under s423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (which, in basic terms, provides that certain disposals made to connected persons for a value less than a fair value may be set aside by the court).