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.     

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.     

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     

Some Observations on the New Group Coordination Procedure of the Reformed European Insolvency Regulation

The recast of the European Insolvency Regulation introduces a new coordination procedure for handling insolvencies of groups of companies. The procedure relies on a group coordinator to create a helpful group insolvency plan while the individual insolvency proceedings remain independent. Albeit being a step into the right direction, the procedure has significant shortcomings such as the weak position of the coordinator, a liberal opt‐in and opt‐out mechanism and the problem of forum shopping. In the end, the new procedure can be a valuable tool in limited cases and should be merely seen as an addendum to a variety of possibilities to handle group insolvencies. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

‘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     

Discharge and entrepreneurship in the preventive restructuring directive

The European Council adopted the Preventive Restructuring Directive (2019/1023/EU) on June 20, 2019, which must be transposed by July 17, 2021, subject to a possible extension of a maximum of 1 year for countries encountering particular difficulties in the implementation. The Directive signals a paradigm shift in EU policy on insolvency from the traditional focus on cross‐border issues. The new Directive puts insolvency squarely at the heart of internal market regulation, following the EU's policy since the Great Recession of 2008 of promoting and strengthening the economy. Since 2016, the European Commission has issued several documents to facilitate insolvency procedures, leading to the recently adopted Preventive Restructuring Directive. Besides restructuring, the Directive promotes the discharge of pre‐insolvency debt for entrepreneurs. The Directive does not require that discharge be extended to other natural persons but recommends it. This article discusses the relationship between entrepreneurs and non‐entrepreneurs in an insolvency situation and concludes that a fair interpretation of the new Directive requires that the situation of the ordinary person with liability for business debt be closely scrutinised.     

The Effect of Regulatory Harmonization on Cross‐Border Labor Migration: Evidence from the Accounting Profession

The paper examines whether international regulatory harmonization increases cross‐border labor migration. To study this question, we analyze European Union initiatives that harmonized accounting and auditing standards. Regulatory harmonization should reduce economic mobility barriers, essentially making it easier for accounting professionals to move across countries. Our research design compares the cross‐border migration of accounting professionals relative to tightly matched other professionals before and after regulatory harmonization. We find that international labor migration in the accounting profession increases significantly relative to other professions. We provide evidence that this effect is due to harmonization, rather than increases in the demand for accounting services during the implementation of the rule changes. The findings illustrate that diversity in rules constitutes an economic barrier to cross‐border labor mobility and, more specifically, that accounting harmonization can have a meaningful effect on cross‐border migration.     

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.     

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.     

The Context for Cross‐Border Insolvency Law Reform in Sub‐Saharan Africa

Cross‐border insolvency literature has developed significantly in recent years. However, the scholarship that has evolved lacks an insight from the perspective of Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). Existing theories on cross‐border insolvencies, and the global insolvency benchmarks that emerged in the recent years, have almost exclusively been developed from the best practices obtained in advanced economies. Accordingly, the context within which SSA cross‐border insolvency reform may be undertaken must be determined and explored given the pressure towards globalisation and the potential for the pressure to result in unsuitable legislative reform. This article sets out the context for cross‐border insolvency law reform in SSA. It raises issues that are likely to arise during the reform process and challenges that may be faced. Copyright © 2014 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

The Role and Current Status of IFRS in the Completion of National Accounting Rules – Evidence from Portugal

Abstract

We explain the process and documents that internalise the European Union (EU) Directive No. 2013/34 in Portugal. The Portuguese accounting standard setting body, the Comissão de Normalização Contabilística (CNC), is the entity in charge of the preparation and implementation of accounting standards. As such, CNC was responsible for the implementation of the EU Directive in Portugal. The Directive was approved by Decree-Law No. 98/2015 of 2 June 2015, but many important aspects of the Directive had already been adopted in Portugal when a new accounting system, designated Sistema de Normalização Contabilística (SNC), was introduced in 2009. Decree-Law No. 98/2015 of 2 June 2015 amends the SNC system to incorporate news aspects of the 2013 EU Directive. The current accounting rules in Portugal are strongly aligned with IFRS but some differences exist.     

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.     

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.     

A Theoretical and Empirical Review of the EU Regulation on Credit Rating Agencies: In Search of Truth,Not Scapegoats

The undergoing financial turbulence has raised significant concerns over the role that credit rating agencies (CRAs) played in the inception, magnification and expansion of the crisis. In response, the EU legislature has adopted Regulation 1060/2009, which, for the first time, set out a legally binding pan‐European authorization regime for CRAs, which issue ratings that have been used by EU‐based financial institutions. As the turmoil turned into an unprecedented Eurozone debt crisis, EU politicians have been calling for tighter regulation of the credit rating industry. Drawing on the relevant empirical and theoretical research and building upon a comparative study of the corresponding US framework, the paper discusses critically the principles underlying EU Regulation 1060/2009 and the most recent suggestions for its reform. The paper argues that although, overall, the EU Regulation seems to be a well‐balanced instrument in the sense that it introduces the essential checks upon CRAs’ behavior while avoiding excessive regulatory intervention, more fine‐tuning is needed in certain fields, including, rating shopping, financial ties with rated entities, abuse of inside information, transparency and CRAs’ accountability.