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.     

Northern Lights,Canada's version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency

Statute of Canada Chapter 47, when it is proclaimed in force, will largely adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency. The current and proposed cross‐border provisions could be considered Canada's “Northern Lights”, evolving constantly, but aligning with the objectives and scope of the UNCITRAL Model Law. While Chapter 47 is a modified version of the Model Law, it continues Canada's regime as one of modified universalism, with a strong commitment to comity and coordination. There are likely to be contests for control over the scope of foreign proceedings, although arguably, no more so than under the language of the Model Law. The most critical issues to resolve in the short term are definitions of COMI where corporate groups are involved, and the issue of the scope and extent of possible concurrent main proceedings, both areas left to the discretion of the courts in their interpretation of the legislation's domestic, as well as cross‐border, provisions. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The legal responses of Canada and Poland to international bankruptcy and insolvency with a focus on cross‐border insolvency law

This article discusses and compares the respective legal responses of Canada and Poland to international bankruptcy and insolvency with a focus on cross‐border insolvency law. Specifically, the issues addressed herein concern jurisdiction, recognition of foreign bankruptcy proceedings, and co‐operation with foreign courts and foreign administrators. Notwithstanding some real differences between Canadian and Polish international insolvency proceedings, both legal regimes may be compared, since both countries have adopted many of the principles contained in the UNICTRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency. The major impetus behind the changes established by Canada in its bankruptcy and insolvency laws have been the economic realities produced by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Likewise, Poland's accession to the European Union (EU) has been a major catalyst for revising the Polish Insolvency and Restructuring Act. Part II of the said act is entirely devoted to international insolvencies. However, following Poland's adherence to the EU, those sections of the Polish Insolvency and Restructuring Act that deal with international or cross‐border insolvencies will be severely limited or constrained in scope. The article indicates that Poland, the EU and Canada are taking the necessary steps to meet the needs of debtors who would like to restructure in an international setting. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency and the Rule of Law

The rule of law is a concept that was often considered in the context of national legal systems. However, it is now commonly being promoted as significant in the transnational context. This paper addresses its importance within the transnational economic and commercial context, in particular in response to cross‐border insolvencies. It examines how the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency and its Guide to Enactment and Interpretation promote key tenets of the rule of law in transnational disputes arising out of businesses in financial distress. In particular, some examples are provided of cases from the Asia‐Pacific region in which the Model Law has been applied to demonstrate how the rule of law may be promoted in an insolvency context. Finally, the paper concludes that the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency promotes transparency, accountability and predictability, which in turn support stability in financial systems and credit relationships and thus trade within a global market. This is a direct result of adherence to elements of the rule of law principle. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Conceptualising upcoming Chinese bank insolvency law: Cross‐border issues

This paper examines the cross‐border effectiveness of bank resolution measures in the context of current and soon‐to‐be revised Chinese bank insolvency legislation, that is, the Bank Resolution Regulation. The general framework is regulated in the Chinese Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. With regard to the outgoing effects of Chinese bank resolution measures, the ultimate decision is in the hands of China's counterparts. However, it is proposed that the contractual approach could be a solution to enhance legal certainty. On the other hand, the incoming effectiveness of foreign resolution measures has to be firstly recognised in China. Three major tests in terms of recognition and enforcement are international agreement, reciprocity, and public policy exception. These criteria should be interpreted against the background of emerging international regime for bank resolution and latest development in the Chinese legal community.     

Recent Development in Recognition of and Assistance to Foreign Insolvency Representatives Under the Hong Kong Common Law

Although Hong Kong has neither enacted nor launched any plan to enact a statute addressing cooperation and assistance on cross‐border insolvency matters, recently, a unique Hong Kong approach dealing with recognition and assistance in cross‐border insolvency is gradually forming under common law. Thanks to the efforts made by the Companies Court of the Hong Kong High Court, insolvency representatives appointed in the place of incorporation of the debtors may, firstly, be accorded a certain degree of automatic recognition and cooperation based on traditional private international law rules without going through a recognition procedure and, secondly, be recognized and granted active assistance under principle of universalism at common law. With regard to the limits of this common law power, the court has referred to but not strictly followed the British Privy Council's decision in Singularis Holdings Limited v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (Singularis) and instead followed the previous approach in Cambridge Gas Transport Corp v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (of Navigator Holdings PLC and others) (Cambridge Gas). The Companies Court also attempted to simplify and facilitate the application and grant of this common law recognition and assistance through a series of innovations. Copyright © 2018 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Implications of the UNCITRAL model law for Australian cross‐border insolvencies

Recent events in international financial markets have focused regulators' and lenders' attention not only on the importance of insolvency laws as an integral part of the regulation of market economies but also on the need to facilitate the administration of multi‐jurisdictional insolvencies. In this context, UNCITRAL has proposed a Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvencies for adoption by its member states. Australia contributed to the relevant UNCITRAL deliberations and is considering possible adoption of the Model Law. This article outlines the Law's main features and its potential impact on current Australian procedures for dealing with cross‐border insolvencies. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

China's new Enterprise Bankruptcy Law—A great leap forward,but just how far?

The closure of many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) following the global financial crisis of 2008 spurred the Chinese government to follow its international counterparts in issuing an economic stimulus package. While it was effective in preventing many financially distressed SMEs from failure by boosting demand for its businesses, in the long run, such SMEs should be rescued through a statutory regime, which affords them temporary protection from creditors and provides them an opportunity to restructure their businesses. In doing so, the premature liquidation of SMEs would be prevented and SMEs with viable businesses but in temporary financial difficulties would be given a chance to succeed again. Although China's new Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (EBL) has shortcomings, it improves upon its predecessor legislation and, since it is still at an infantile stage of development, is bound for further reform. Despite the EBL's success in bringing Chinese corporate bankruptcy laws in line with international standards, full compliance with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency and UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law remains to be seen. In September 2008, the South China Morning Post newspaper reported that the number of (applications for) corporate reorganization and bankruptcy cases had dropped, “leading to widespread speculation there are problems in the law's practical application”. 1 This article examines the implementation of the EBL, critiques key aspects of the EBL and argues for a comprehensive assessment of the EBL and for bringing the EBL in full compliance with the international standards on cross‐border insolvency. Copyright © 2010 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 Use of Noncourt‐Based Corporate Rescue: Does the Australian Voluntary Administration Procedure Provide a Model for China?

In the recent international history of insolvency law reform, the reform of corporate rescue and restructuring has been an ongoing project. In China, the enactment of the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law 2006 saw the introduction of a bankruptcy reorganisation procedure that incorporates the debtor‐in‐possession model found in Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code. However, the Chinese corporate rescue procedure has been significantly underused due in part to various drawbacks associated with this court‐based and highly politicalised process. This paper explores the possibility of reforming China's current corporate rescue regime by drawing upon the Australian voluntary administration procedure. Found in Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), this procedure was designed to provide a relatively swift, inexpensive and flexible corporate rescue mechanism for companies in financial distress. It comprises a noncourt based mechanism under the control of one or more professionally qualified private administrators. It is interesting to note that the UK also moved away from exclusive reliance upon court‐based administration procedures following the passage of the Enterprise Act 2002. This moved the UK closer to the Australian practitioner‐dominated approach to corporate rescue. This paper argues that the addition of a voluntary administration‐style procedure to China's current corporate rescue regime may be needed as China develops its market economy based on the rule of law. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

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.     

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     

Cross-border insolvency law in India: Are the principles of comity of courts and inherent common law jurisdiction relevant?

Deliberations are in the final stages for enacting a cross-border insolvency law in India based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency 1997 (‘Model Law’). The cross-border insolvency regime in India will provide an avenue for recognising foreign insolvency proceedings in India. Although it is a matter of time before India adopts the Model Law, it is important to examine whether there remains an independent basis in addition to the Model Law for recognising and providing assistance to cross-border insolvency proceedings in India. This is crucial on account of the following reasons: first, the Model Law does not provide that it is the exclusive pathway for foreign creditors to seek remedies under domestic law. The Model Law, as reflected in Article 7, was intended by its drafters to be an additional gateway to those provided under local laws. The proposed Indian law in Article 5 of Draft Part Z of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 also does not depart expressly from this principle. Second, there may be instances where neither the ‘Centre of Main Interests’ nor an establishment of a corporate debtor is situated in India; therefore, assistance and cooperation in respect of such cross-border insolvency proceeding can only be based on the inherent common law jurisdiction, if available. Third, the cross-border insolvency framework in India will be premised on the requirement for reciprocity and, therefore, countries that do not meet the reciprocity requirement may find it beneficial if such an independent basis for recognition exists in India. This article argues that foreign representatives should be encouraged to explore the possibility of seeking assistance from the commercial courts in India under the common law principles governing cross-border insolvency and that the courts in India should be open to this possibility.     

Cross‐border Insolvency Problems: Is the UNCITRAL Model Law the Answer?

This paper examines the impact that the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency has had on States in the light of the central problems often associated with transnational insolvencies. Despite the accolades that it has received, the Model Law has been adopted in only 19 countries in the last 15 years and that too in many different ways. If the number of adoptees and the rather conditional acceptance of the Model Law's provisions represent a lack of international enthusiasm for adopting the Model Law, what are the reasons for this? The paper concludes by asking whether the UNCITRAL Model Law presently has a future in dealing with cross‐border insolvencies. Copyright © 2012 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

When Hong Kong becomes SAR,is the mainland ready? Problems of judgments recognition in cross‐border insolvency matters

After Hong Kong's handover in the year 1997 to the People's Republic of China (PRC), two judicial systems began to operate in parallel in one country. To date, judicial convergence in cross‐border insolvency matters has not yet been established between the mainland and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR). By reviewing several recent court decisions, this article demonstrates some problems of judgment recognition in matters of cross‐border insolvency between the two regions. Copyright © 2010 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.     

How Does Cross‐Border Activity Affect EU Banking Markets?

Cross‐border activity in the EU is widely viewed as a necessary condition for the implementation of a single banking market and therefore as a positive factor for the enhancement of competition and cost performance in the region. In this paper, we analyse the relevance of this view by investigating whether cross‐border activity really promotes competition and cost efficiency in EU banking markets. We also consider the potential role of a bank's mode of entry by comparing existing domestic banks that foreign banks take over (mergers and acquisitions) with new branches created by foreign banks, often through subsidiaries (greenfield operations). We consider the impact of cross‐border banks on cost efficiency (measured by the stochastic frontier approach), profitability (assessed through return on assets) and competition (measured by the Lerner index). We find that greenfield banks enhance cost efficiency and competition, while mergers and acquisitions hamper competition and cost efficiency. Therefore, our results suggest that EU authorities should promote only greenfield banks rather than all cross‐border entries.     

Chief executive officer remuneration disclosure quality: corporate responses to an evolving disclosure environment

We examine chief executive officer remuneration disclosure in Australia from 1998 to 2004. Disclosure was first required by the Company Law Review Act 1998 (CLRA98). Despite CLRA98's clear intentions, firms generally failed to comply until the requirements were formalized by Director and Executive Disclosures by Disclosing Entities (AASB1046), issued in 2004. For a sample of 124 firms, we find significant improvements in disclosure concurrent both with CLRA98 and AASB1046. We also find firm size, corporate governance, auditor quality, cross‐listing status and public scrutiny to be significant explanations of disclosure. Our results indicate that high quality disclosures will only come about through detailed, black letter requirements and that principle‐based legislation involving interpretative discretion is unlikely to produce the desired level of disclosure.     

The Empirical Studies of China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law: Problems and Improvements

Over the past 9 years since the implementation of China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law in 2007, it has contributed to some measures of regulating market practice and rearrangement of market resources and has become an integral part in an improved legal system of China's market economy. However, a closer look at the effect of implementing the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law shows that the number of bankruptcy cases after its implementation, instead of increasing, has taken on a trend of decreasing. Even under the influence of the 2008 financial crisis, no significant increase in the number of Chinese bankrupt enterprises means that China's Bankruptcy Law failed to play its due role, leaving a large gap as desired. As such, this article aims to examine the problems arising from the implementation of the Bankruptcy Law and, taking this as guidance, probe into the reasons hidden behind and propose possible improvement measures. It is expected that the Bankruptcy Law would increasingly play a key role in the development of China's market economy, particularly under the current situation where Chinese government proposes to clean up zombie businesses. Copyright © 2018 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Target Company Cross‐border Effects in Acquisitions into the UK

We analyse the abnormal returns to target shareholders in cross‐border and domestic acquisitions of UK companies. The cross‐border effect during the bid month is small (0.84%), although cross‐border targets gain significantly more than domestic targets during the months surrounding the bid. We find no evidence for the level of abnormal returns in cross‐border acquisitions to be associated with market access or exchange rate effects, and only limited support for an international diversification effect. However, the cross‐border effect appears to be associated with significant payment effects, and there is no significant residual cross‐border effect once various bid characteristics are controlled for.