Cross‐border Insolvency and Legal Transnationalisation

The last 20 years has seen an explosion of approaches for dealing with an inevitable consequence of globalised markets, that of cross‐border insolvencies. This article places phenomena such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency and Cross‐border Insolvency Agreements (also known as Protocols) within the context of developing laws on international commercial transactions. First, it briefly describes the evolution of the international commercial law (sometimes known as the law merchant) to provide a context to understanding the international commercial responses to the problems created by cross‐border insolvencies. Next, it outlines the range of approaches being adopted by states and multilateral bodies in recent decades to resolve cross‐border insolvency issues. Finally it draws some preliminary conclusions on the potential implication of this transnationalisation process and broader international commercial law perspective, in particular on the capacity of cross‐border insolvency agreements to address cross‐border insolvency issues. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Are Bangladesh,India and Pakistan Ready to Adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency?

The development of business laws in key markets has not kept pace with the exponential growth of foreign investment they have experienced. Countries such as Brazil, Russia and China either do not consider the issue of cross‐border insolvency in their legislation or they explicitly provide for a ‘territorialist’ approach to cross‐border insolvency proceedings, whereby each country grabs local assets for the benefit of local creditors, with little consideration of foreign proceedings. This has led to uncoordinated, expensive attempts at cross‐border reorganisation. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency (1997) was adopted with the objective of modernising international insolvency regimes and enhancing cross‐border cooperation. In its 19 years of existence, it has been adopted by 41 countries in a total of 43 jurisdictions but by none of the BRIC states or the ‘Next‐11’ nations of Bangladesh and Pakistan. While it has entered into policy‐level discussion in China, India and Russia, it would seem that there is still scepticism regarding the efficacy and suitability of the Model Law for adoption into their national systems. This paper seeks to establish whether the Model Law can adequately plug, what Steven Kargman calls, ‘the glaring gap in the international insolvency architecture’, looking particularly at the context of the South Asian states of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It will question whether its adoption will improve the ability of these jurisdictions to handle the challenges of cross‐border insolvencies, especially in light of their existing legal landscape, their market policy objectives and the existing alternatives available to the Model Law. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bridge over Troubled Water: The Revised Insolvency Regulation

The EU legislature has used the last two and a half years to negotiate a modernised framework for cross‐border insolvencies largely outside the spotlight of public debate. The revised Insolvency Regulation introduces new rules on secondary proceedings and innovative provisions on insolvency proceedings for groups of companies. Some parts of the final reform package were not originally envisaged by the European Commission, and it was the European Parliament and the Council that, in an unusual display of unity, agreed on more ambitious steps than the EU executive had proposed. However, not all that glitters is gold. The legislature missed the opportunity to clarify the concept of Centre of Main Interest, and it is still for the courts to establish international jurisdiction on the basis of rather vague criteria. It will soon be time to give life to the rules and ensure that cross‐border insolvencies are conducted more effectively than they are today. The new rules entered into force on 25 June 2015 and apply from 26 June 2017. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Towards adoption of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on cross‐border insolvency in Kenya

Kenyan Insolvency Bill has been in the Kenyan government website since 2010. The analysis of the Bill reveals that if it were to be passed into law, it will have significant implications for the Kenyan insolvency legal regime. The regime which is currently in use is based on the law that was inherited from the colonial administration. This review article focusses on the potential implication that the Bill is, if it were to be passed into law, likely to have for cross‐border insolvency reform and proceedings. The analysis is informed by the international insolvency benchmarks, particularly the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on cross‐border insolvency and the emerging trends of its adoption in various countries including in sub‐Saharan Africa. Copyright © 2013 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Retracted: The inter‐relationship between intellectual property and international insolvency

The following article from International Insolvency Review, “The inter‐relationship between intellectual property and international insolvency” by Bashar H. Malkawi, published online on 13 Jan 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com), has been retracted by agreement between the author, the journal editor, and John Wiley & Sons. The retraction has been agreed due to significant overlap between this and another paper: “The fate of intellectual property assets in cross‐border insolvency proceedings” by Nadine Farid published in Gonzaga Law Review, 44(1). Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cross‐border assistance in insolvency under Jersey law

As an off‐shore financial centre, Jersey has not been immune from the global recession, which has brought consideration of cross‐border insolvencies and whether the right tools exist in domestic law to manage proceedings of this nature. It is the purpose of this article to outline the Jersey law relating to cross‐border assistance in insolvency. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Future Direction of China's Cross‐border Insolvency Laws,Related Issues and Potential Problems

The enactment of bankruptcy laws by the People's Republic of China (PRC or China) in 2006 was a necessary step in the development of its economy. This law represented a significant modernisation of the insolvency framework, supporting the transforming economy, but it was also a law of political expediency, for the enhancement of external relations. One aspect of the enhancement of external relations was the provision of cross‐border insolvency rules. However, this complex area of law was addressed in only one article, which was only a starting point, leaving many details unaddressed, and further reforms are required. In particular, it is desirable that the law provides a greater level of predictability as to the likely outcomes of cross‐border insolvencies, to encourage inward trade and investment, as well as encourage external trade. Both inbound and outbound business dealings are important to China's continued economic development. It is clear also, however, that insolvency law and practice is still a developing area for China. The establishment of a modern and unified system of insolvency laws was a big step for China, representing a sacrifice of tight controls on insolvencies, but the impact of this law in practice is only recently developing, with a loosening of state controls, after a very slow start. 1 The establishment of a cross‐border insolvency framework represents a further challenge; one that is likely to beset with considerable difficulties, as any further development of this law would potentially entail some further loss of control over proceedings, not least in outbound cases, and resistance may be anticipated. In keeping with China's historical approach to lawmaking in the area of bankruptcy law, it is likely that the cross‐border insolvency framework will develop gradually and with caution. This article assesses the way forward in respect of cross‐border insolvency laws, contending that an incremental approach over a period of years, in three broad stages, is required, with more developed and country‐specific approaches providing a link, or interim stage, between the clarification of the Article 5 and the formal adoption of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency Proceedings 1997 (Model Law) in China. Copyright © 2018 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Conflicts of interest,intra‐group financing and procedural coordination of group insolvencies

Modern insolvency law instruments recognise the specificity of enterprise group insolvencies, premised on the existence of close operational and financial links between group members. It is widely accepted that maximisation of insolvency estate value and procedural efficiency depend on coordination of insolvency proceedings opened with respect to group entities. Such coordination is prescribed in the European Insolvency Regulation (recast), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency and the recently reformed German insolvency law. Yet in insolvency, group members retain their own insolvency estates and pools of creditors. This is based on the traditional company law principle of entity shielding. Active communication and cooperation between insolvency practitioners and courts do not sit well with the separate (atomistic) nature of insolvency proceedings, as well as different and oftentimes conflicting interests of creditors in such proceedings. As a result, communication and cooperation may be restricted in a situation of conflicts of interest. This article explores how in the context of group distress the risks arising from conflicts of interest can be controlled and mitigated, while ensuring efficient cross‐border cooperation and communication to the maximum extent possible. It analyses three cutting‐edge coordination mechanisms, namely (a) cross‐border insolvency agreements or protocols, (b) special (group coordination and planning) proceedings and (c) the appointment of a single insolvency practitioner. It concludes that both the likelihood and significance of conflicts of interest correlate with the degree of procedural coordination. Therefore, conflict mitigation tools and strategies need to be tailor‐made and targeted at a specific level and coordination mechanism.     

A Glimpse into the Future: Cross‐border Judicial Cooperation in Insolvency Cases in the European Union

After 2 years of study, discussion and consultation, in February 2015, the EU Cross‐Border Insolvency Court‐to‐Court Cooperation Principles were published. The EU Cross‐Border Insolvency Court‐to‐Court Cooperation Principles (‘EU JudgeCo Principles’) contain 26 principles. The EU JudgeCo Principles aim to strengthen efficient and effective communication between courts in EU Member States in insolvency cases with cross‐border effects. The EU JudgeCo Principles, in short, include principles on their non‐binding status and their objectives, case management of courts and the equal treatment of creditors, and principles about the judicial decisions itself, on the reasoning and for instance on providing a stay or moratorium. Several principles relate to the course of the proceedings, such as notifications and authentication of documents, and the last principles concern the outcome of judicial cooperation, for instance, cross‐border sales, assistance to a reorganisation or rules for binding creditors to an international reorganisation plan. The Principles include 18 EU Cross‐Border Insolvency Court‐to‐Court Communications Guidelines (‘EU JudgeCo Guidelines’). These EU JudgeCo Guidelines aim to facilitate communications in practice, in individual cross‐border cases. The EU JudgeCo Principles try to overcome present obstacles for courts in EU Member States such as formalistic and detailed national procedural law, concerns about a judge's impartiality, uneasiness with the use of certain legal concepts and terms, and, evidently, language. Presently, court‐to‐court communication between judges in insolvency matters in the EU, especially on the continent, is limited to only a few cases. In the near future, judicial cooperation and communication will be a cornerstone in the efficient and effective administration of insolvency cases within the EU. The EU JudgeCo Principles will then certainly serve as a significant guide. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Jurisdiction concerning annex actions in the context of the insolvency and Brussels Ibis regulations

The legislation of the European Union has addressed the private international law aspects of civil and commercial matters and those of insolvency cases separately. While the Brussels Ibis Regulation (and its predecessors) focuses on “classic” civil of commercial cases, insolvency proceedings are subject to the (recast) Insolvency Regulation. However, the close interference between the two related areas of law—commercial and insolvency—results in a category of cases that are commercial and contentious in nature, and so they would tend to gravitate towards the Brussels regime, but yet they are so closely connected to the insolvency proceedings that justifies a special approach. This article focuses on the question of international jurisdiction regarding these “annex actions” in the context of the EU law. It will attempt to explore the historical roots of the current provisions and the evolution of both the European legislation and the relevant case law. The examination of this progression provides a better understanding of the current legislation and answers some questions apparently left open in the recast Insolvency Regulation.     

The transaction avoidance regime in the recast European insolvency regulation: Limits and prospects

In the last decade, transaction avoidance in insolvency law has been in the limelight of the academic discussions. In particular, the scholarship has highlighted how the European Insolvency Regulation gives rise to several private international law issues. Moreover, the scholarship has explored solutions to these issues and proposed to harmonise the regime of transaction avoidance at European Union level. However, the recent legislative developments on the cross‐border insolvency law seem resistant to the proposed harmonisation. This article focuses on the transaction avoidance regime in the Recast European Insolvency Regulation. In particular, it seeks to evaluate whether the Recast has solved the issues arising within the original European Insolvency Regulation in relation to transaction avoidance. Secondly, it questions the suitability of the private international law approach to transaction avoidance in cross‐border insolvency within the European Union framework. The research suggests that the efforts required to the private international law framework to deal efficiently with transaction avoidance make the harmonisation of the regime of transaction avoidance at the European Union level a more appealing option.     

Reconsidering Procedural Consolidation for Multinational Corporate Groups in the Context of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation

Procedural consolidation, as a solution to the rescue of insolvent multinational corporate groups (‘MCGs’), is said to be able to preserve group value for creditors. This article explores the desirability of procedural consolidation in the EU in the light of theories of corporate rescue law, cross‐border insolvency law, multinational enterprises and relevant EU cases with reference to the European Insolvency Regulation. It argues that, based on current cross‐border insolvency rules in the EU, there is an inherent difficulty for procedural consolidation in balancing the goal of preservation of group value and the goal of certainty. The article also considers the new ‘group procedural coordination proceedings’ offered by the Recast European Insolvency Regulation and argues that it may help to supplement the gap left by the procedural consolidation in the EU. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Maritime cross‐border insolvency in China

Due to the high degree of mobility of ships and the special operational structures of shipping companies, it is difficult to harmonise the cross‐border insolvency regime with the maritime law regime governing ships. One of the typical examples is the recent bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd. Chinese creditors were heavily affected by the bankruptcy of Hanjin. However, Hanjin never filed an application to have its Korean insolvency proceeding recognised in the People's Republic of China (PRC). Nor did it commence any ancillary insolvency application under the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the PRC. Taking Hanjin's bankruptcy as an example, this article examines the current statutory regime of cross‐border insolvency in the PRC in detail and analyses the approach adopted by the Chinese courts to resolve the conflicts that arise between the cross‐border insolvency and maritime law regimes.     

The effectiveness and efficiency of corporate insolvency law—part two

Little empirical research has been done in the Netherlands (or internationally) into the effect of corporate insolvency proceedings. The Dutch legislature has made several attempts in the past decades to revise the current Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet) of 1893, while almost nothing is known about the effectiveness and efficiency of the Dutch corporate insolvency law. I have studied the effectiveness of the current Dutch insolvency law and of European Directive 2001/23/EC which is incorporated in this law, on the basis of theoretical and large‐scale empirical research. The study concerned all 4167 of the corporate insolvencies that ended in 2004. In the first part of this Article (International Insolvency Review, Volume 17, 3, Winter 2008, pp. 189–209), the research results showed that the Dutch Bankruptcy Act achieved the goals set on it only to a limited degree and that the informal restructuring procedure is of great social importance. In this second part, I concentrate on the conditions imposed by European Directive 2001/23/EC on the European national legislatures to protect employees' rights: automatic transfer of employment contracts in the event of transfers as part of insolvency proceedings, together with measures to prevent misuse of insolvency proceedings in such a way as to deprive employees of the rights provided for in this European Directive. The study shows that, in the Netherlands, not applying automatic transfer of employment contracts when an undertaking or business is transferred as part of an insolvency proceeding does not result in large‐scale misuse of insolvency law. It appears that automatic transfer of employment contracts outside insolvency proceedings can actually impede the informal restructuring of financially unsound companies. These surprising results are interesting for corporate insolvency proceedings worldwide. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Set‐off under the European insolvency regulation (and English law)

This paper addresses critically the meaning and effect of the set‐off provisions in the European Insolvency Regulation. The Regulation sets out the authority of EU Member States to open insolvency proceedings and provides that, subject to exceptions, the law of the State that opens insolvency proceedings shall apply to those proceedings. Setoff is one such exception for the opening of insolvency proceedings does not affect the rights of creditors to demand the set‐off of their claims against the insolvent debtor. Set‐off is intended to perform a guarantee type function for creditor claims. Nevertheless, the Regulation does not define what is meant by set‐off nor clarify whether set‐off rights under the law of a third country (such as English law) may be relied upon. The paper provides valuable clarification and critical analysis.     

Chinese cross-border insolvency laws: Recent developments and international implications

The present Chinese insolvency law is under the process of legislative reform, and one focus point among legislators and academics is cross-border issues. China is slowly opening up its market to foreign insolvency proceedings, as demonstrated by the 2021 Chinese Mainland-Hong Kong cross-border insolvency cooperation mechanism. This first attempt, however, is only available in three trial cities in the Mainland and does not apply to jurisdictions other than Hong Kong. Nevertheless, it does not undermine the intention of the Mainland to advance its cross-border insolvency framework. Based on a thorough examination of Chinese legislation and judicial practices, this article submits that China would be willing to accept international standards and be a more active player in international insolvencies.     

‘Brexit’ and International Insolvency Beyond the Realm of Mutual Trust

The outcome of the referendum held in the UK in June 2016 is of far‐reaching and unpredictable consequences. This article focuses on the particular field of international insolvency with a view to identifying some of them, all arising out of the fact that the UK will be leaving the EU area of justice and the strong cooperation based on mutual trust between member states. This will make UK–EU insolvency cases clearly less efficient and effective. The consequences of Brexit could be mitigated by the already existing coordination among the international instruments dealing with these matters, in particular the European Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency. However, not all EU member states have in place rules dealing with these issues as regards to third states. In order to lessen the impact of Brexit in this sensitive area of law, the implementation of the Model Law in order to deal with extra‐EU cross‐border insolvency could be of avail. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

The ancillary insolvency proceeding

The main legal acts on International Insolvency Law (the European Regulation, the UNCITRAL Model Act and the European Convention on Certain International Aspects of Bankruptcy) lay down several local proceedings with substantive effects as regards the debtor, the distribution of proceeds and the ranking of claims. These—full—proceedings are characterized by a high degree of unpredictability and prove to be inadequate for creditors. These are the reasons why, as an immediate solution, the existing insolvency rules should be reinterpreted according to a certain logic of the market. However, such revision would only partially and provisionally solve the inconveniences of the current model. The true and ‘unsolvable’ problem is that even though the full local proceeding is based on international assistance, it alters the substantive insolvency rules. Therefore, in future it would be necessary to create a truly ancillary proceeding. Such a proceeding would not have any substantive effect as regards the debtor, the creditors and third parties, nor would it require any kind of distribution of proceeds and ranking of claims. However, this proceeding would enable to provide procedural assistance to foreign courts and procedural protection to local creditors. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Chinese cross‐border insolvencies: current issues and future developments*

This article deals with several problems pertaining to cross‐border insolvency, an important but ignored area in China. In this article, the current status of Chinese bankruptcy laws has been firstly addressed, with a focus on its legal blank on cross‐border insolvency and unsatisfactory judicial practice. Thereafter, the influential Guargdong International Trust and Investment company case has been analysed, which further highlights the inadequacy of Chinese bankruptcy legislation and crying needs for its reform. Basing on the essential principles embodied in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law and European Union Regulation, the gaps between Chinese bankruptcy laws and international practice have been made clear. Accordingly, the developments of Chinese cross‐border insolvency have been proposed in order to provide helpful references for the future legislation. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Universalism and the recognition of group proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law in Montenegro

Among the most topical insolvency issues in 2017 was the Croatian “Lex Agrokor”—a controversial “tailor‐made” law providing a unique restructuring opportunity for the largest Croatian conglomerate, the parent company of which was otherwise facing bankruptcy. Soon after the “extraordinary administration procedure” began, the appointed administrator started filing motions for the recognition of the alleged group insolvency as foreign insolvency proceedings in a number of neighbouring and other European countries, most of which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency. It was an attempt to save the conglomerate's property from being seized in a disorderly fashion by various secured creditors, most noticeably, the largest Russian financial institution Sberbank, which contested these motions with varying success. This article, however, does not present an effort to comprehensively analyse the ongoing legal battle but rather adopts a broader approach to examining the Lex Agrokor to establish grounds for more general conclusions. More precisely, the purpose of this article is twofold. First, to offer strong arguments that, from the standpoint of typical insolvency legislation based on the Model Law, such as that of Montenegro, both the actual and future group proceedings initiated under the Lex Agrokor should fail to meet recognition requirements. Second, based on the preceding case study, to offer conclusions on how to further promote universal approach regarding group insolvencies by emphasizing exactly what the national laws regulating group insolvency should not feature so as to have the proceedings introduced therewith recognized in countries adopting the Model Law.