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.     

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by Bashar H. Malkawi, published online on 13 Jan 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com), has been retracted by agreement between the author, the journal editor, and John Wiley & Sons.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.     

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.     

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     

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.     

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 European Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency

This article compares the Recast European Insolvency Regulation of 2015 with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency of 1997, focussed on their scope of application, international jurisdiction and the coordination of main and secondary proceedings. The scopes of both catalogues of norms and their rules on coordination of main and secondary insolvency proceedings reflect one another. However, the Recast EIR makes a significantly greater contribution to the unification of law and is also more fully differentiated and more precise, even if this comes at a price, namely, limited flexibility. The UNCITRAL Model Law made an important contribution to the harmonisation of international insolvency law but requires now modernisation. Copyright © 2017 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.     

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.     

Transposing the preventive restructuring directive 2019 into French insolvency law: Rethinking the role of the judge and rebalancing creditors' rights

In June 2019, the European Union adopted the Directive on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks. The objective of the Directive is to introduce a level‐playing field across all Member States in the area of pre‐insolvency restructuring. Member States have until 2021 to transpose the Directive into their domestic insolvency regimes. In April 2019, the French legislator adopted the “Pacte Law”, whose aim is, inter alia, the transposition of the European Directive on Preventive Restructuring. Although five preventive restructuring tools already exist in the French regime, the transposition of the Directive will have an impact on current restructuring practices as it will require: (i) rebalancing the involvement and role of judicial authorities in preventive restructuring proceedings; and (ii) rebalancing the involvement of, and protection granted to, creditors.     

The Inherent Power of Common Law Courts to Provide Assistance in Cross‐Border Insolvencies: From Comity to Complexity

The weighty and difficult issues associated with cross‐border insolvency have generated considerable debate over the last two decades. Legislative reform has typically proven slow and fragmented. This article analyses the inherent power of common law courts to grant assistance in cross‐border insolvency proceedings and the basis on which the inherent power is exercised. In doing so, it seeks to explore how the inherent power may continue to be of utility to common law courts. In particular, it considers the position in jurisdictions that are yet to adopt the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency or enact a substantial statutory regime for recognising and cooperating with foreign courts or representatives in insolvency proceedings. The article considers the benefits and disadvantages of continuing to recognise – and extend – the inherent power. It suggests that although there are fundamental differences concerning the exercise of the inherent power, it may be possible to agree on a number of principles that inform the application of the inherent power and its future development. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Grounds for Refusal of Recognition of (Quasi‐) Annex Judgements in the Recast European Insolvency Regulation

Insolvency‐related (annex) actions and judgements fall within the scope of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation (‘Recast EIR’). That instrument both determines international jurisdiction regarding annex actions and sets up a simplified recognition system for annex judgements. However, tension between the Recast EIR's provisions on jurisdiction and recognition arises when a court of a state different from the state of insolvency erroneously assumes jurisdiction for annex actions. Such ‘quasi‐annex’ judgements rendered by foreign courts erroneously assuming jurisdiction threaten the integrity of the insolvency proceedings. Besides, the quasi‐annex judgements may violate the effectiveness and efficiency of the insolvency proceedings as well as the principle of legal certainty. In this article, it is argued that even the current legal framework may offer some ways to avoid the recognition of such quasi‐annex judgements. First, the scope of the public policy exception may be extended in order to protect the integrity of the insolvency proceedings from the quasi‐annex judgements rendered by foreign courts erroneously assuming jurisdiction. Second, it may be argued that quasi‐annex judgements do not equal real annex judgements and therefore do not enjoy the automatic recognition system provided by the Recast EIR. At the same time, their close connection to the insolvency proceedings – disregarded by the forum erroneously assuming jurisdiction – may exclude quasi‐annex judgements from the scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, as well. As a consequence, those quasi‐annex judgements may fall within the gap between the two regulations, meaning that no European instrument instructs the courts of the member state addressed to recognise quasi‐annex judgements. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cross-border insolvency law of China: An empirical analysis and proposal based on the insolvency cooperation mechanism between the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong

In the context of the national strategy of the construction of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, the first institutional breakthrough in cross-border insolvency cooperation between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong was achieved on 14 May 2021, and the first case of recognition and assistance in insolvency proceedings in Hong Kong, Re Samson Paper Co Ltd., emerged in judicial practice in December 2021. The judicial practice of Samson not only successfully verifies the great significance of the Record of Meeting and the Opinion for institutional ice-breaking of cross-border insolvency cooperation in the Chinese Mainland, but also reflects the practical effects and legislative issues of the above documents on the mechanism of insolvency cooperation between two areas. In view of the problems reflected by the practice of Re Samson Paper Co Ltd. and existing in the legislation, this paper puts forward specific proposals for the cross-border insolvency cooperation between the Chinese Mainland and Hong Kong, including abolishing the precondition of reciprocity, strengthening exchanges, and cooperation between the two areas on parallel bankruptcy issues, and supplementing the coordination of parallel bankruptcy procedures for cross-border insolvency. It also proposes domestic legislation on cross-border insolvency recognition and assistance in China in a point-by-point manner, so as to achieve the establishment of a sound cross-border insolvency cooperation mechanism in line with the international community.     

“Too big to fail”? The Agrokor case and its impact on West Balkan economies

From about April 2017, Agrokor became the main economic topic in the Balkans. Once the greatest pride of the Croatian economy, it became a serious problem for its government. Its systemic importance for the country and the region required an immediate legislative solution. The Government had Parliament pass a special law intended to save this company. The special law on the procedure of extraordinary administration in companies of systemic importance adopted in April 2017 is an interesting example, because it introduced a new insolvency procedure titled “extraordinary administration” clearly following the example of the Italian Legge Marzano, which was adopted in order to save the Parmalat group in 2003. It also represents an example of a collision of legislation in the case of cross‐border insolvency proceedings inside and outside of the European Union, where different jurisdictions have diverging standpoints on the question of its recognition as a foreign insolvency procedure. However, once the rescue proceedings began, numerous (and some dubious) interests of the different stakeholders came to the light. The government tried not only to rescue the company and its assets throughout the Balkans region but also to acquire control of it. This was especially visible through the prerogatives of the extraordinary commissioner, formally appointed by the court, but in fact a government official. Creditors at risk, mainly Russian and Italian banks, filed lawsuits to prevent the selling of the debtor's assets. At the end, the majority creditors called to vote on the settlement agreement became the new owners of the company. However, Agrokor is still far from the end of the crisis. It has more than 60,000 employees in the region and their destiny depends on the outcome of the crisis. In more recent times, the case also revealed major political scandals.     

Cross-Border Insolvencies in the 21st Century: A Proposal for International Cooperation

Faced with a maze of national insolvency laws, cross-border insolvencies currently lack the fairness to both debtor and creditor that can be found in domestic proceedings. Yet the problem of international insolvencies cannot be solved by independent action in individual nations, nor without a fundamental commitment to the principle of universality. This article discusses one proposed solution to the problem of how best to encourage the central administration of cross-border insolvencies. namely the Model International Insolvency Cooperation Act (“MIICA”). The author reviews MIICA's genesis, principles, provisions and prospects for implementation. Confrontées à une multitude de lois nationales sur l'insolvabilité, les faillites ayant lieu au-delà de nos frontières ne sont pas aussi équitables vis-àvis des débiteurs et des créditeurs que celles qui surviennent à l'intérieur du pays. Cependant, le problème de faillites internationales ne peut pas être résolu de façon indépendante par différents pays ou sans adhérer au principe de l'universalité. Cet article examine une des solutions proposées afin d'encourager le plus possible l'administration centrale des faillites qui se produisent à l‘étranger, notamment la “Model International Insolvency Cooperation Act” (“Loi Modèle sur la cooperation quant à l'insolvabilité internationale”). L'auteure passe en revue les origines, les principes, les disopositions et les perspectives d'application de la Loi.     

Groups of companies in the Recast European Insolvency Regulation: Around and about the “group”

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (Recast European Insolvency Regulation/Recast EIR) contains a set of articles dedicated to the insolvency proceedings relative to members of groups of companies. No substantial consolidation or any procedural nature is envisaged. Article 2(13) of Regulation 2015/848 clarifies that, for the purposes of the same, a “group of companies” must be understood as “a parent undertaking and all its subsidiary undertakings.” However, many doubts arise when one goes deeper into that definition. The author deals with some of those problems and gives some suggestions to overcome them.     

Conflicting norms: Impact of the Model Law on Chapter 11's Global Restructuring Role

The Model Law's emphasis on the debtor's center of main interest (COMI) as the proper jurisdiction for the main insolvency proceeding is at odds with the traditional United States approach of applying Chapter 11 to restructure foreign entities with no significant US connection. This paper explores whether adoption of the Model Law has made Chapter 11 less available for debtors with a foreign COMI. The Model Law has had no direct impact on the US courts approach to foreign‐entity Chapter 11 cases. However, shortly after the Model Law's adoption, several reported US decisions added the pendency of a foreign insolvency proceeding as a factor supporting discretionary abstention or dismissal of foreign Chapter 11 cases. While those decisions do not refer to the Model Law, it is possible that the Model Law's COMI‐centric approach influenced this new trend.     

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.     

What is in a Name? Group Coordination or Consolidation Plan—What is Allowed Under the EIR Recast?

The European Insolvency Regulation Recast allows for group coordination proceedings if insolvency proceedings have been opened against different companies belonging to a single group. Group coordination proceedings imply the drafting of a group coordination plan in order to define an integrated solution to the group's problems. This plan shall not include recommendations as to any consolidation of proceedings or insolvency estates. Against the backdrop of the evolving notion of ‘procedural consolidation’ and the fact the insolvency practitioners and courts concerned have to cooperate and communicate with each other, this prohibition is misplaced and should be interpreted to mean only that main or secondary proceedings opened in a member state cannot be transferred to another jurisdiction. The effective administration of insolvency proceedings of related group companies often demands an integrated solution to the group's problems, which will inevitably lead to some form of consolidation. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Insolvency proceedings from a sustainability perspective

Sustainability is a wide concept including environmental, economic, social/culture, and political dimensions. Currently, sustainability research is a rich scientific discipline producing a significant number of research papers. However, sustainability in the context of insolvency proceedings has attracted little research compared with, for example, how much attention corporate social responsibility has received in company law research. This article studies sustainability in the context of liquidation and restructuring proceedings and the preservation of different kinds of resources (natural, manufactured, human, and social capital) in insolvency procedures. The purpose of insolvency proceedings may prevent the full implementation of sustainability. In bankruptcy, the administrator must maximise the selling price for creditor satisfaction, and there are few possibilities to promote sustainability. When facing an acute environmental hazard, in the name of public interest, a bankruptcy estate with assets usually has to act unless the law stipulates that society is responsible for taking care of the problem. In restructuring proceedings, the main purpose is to continue the debtor's business. It depends on the markets how sustainable the debtor company must be to achieve profitability. If becoming a profitable company in a “green” or otherwise sustainable market requires costly efforts, creditors' interests may require the sale of the assets. The author views through sustainability lenses EU Restructuring and insolvency Directive (2019) and finds there is not much of a sustainability approach included.