UK Cross‐Border Cooperation: Extending Rescue to Jersey Debtors on a ‘Passporting’ Basis

This article looks at the scope of using, via the Letter of Request method, the insolvency laws of another jurisdiction in circumstances where the laws of the requesting jurisdiction do not adequately cater for the type of proceeding required. Copyright © 2013 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     

Cross‐market spillovers with ‘volatility surprise’

This article adopts the asymmetric DCC with one exogenous variable (ADCCX) model developed by Vargas (2008), by updating the concept of ‘volatility surprise’ to capture cross-market relationships. Current methods for measuring spillovers do not focus on volatility interactions, and neglect cross-effects between the conditional variances. This paper aims to fill this gap. The dataset includes four aggregate indices representing equities, bonds, foreign exchange rates and commodities from 1983 to 2013. The results provide strong evidence of spillover effects coming from the ‘volatility surprise’ component across markets. Against the background of the recent financial crisis, the aim is to contribute to the literature on the interdependencies of financial markets, both in conditional means and (co)variances. In addition, asset management implications are derived.     

Cross‐Border Debt Adjustment – Open Questions in European Insolvency Proceedings

At present, 18 European Union member states have some form of legislation on adjustment of the debts of a private individual. Only half of these debt adjustment proceedings are mentioned in Annex A of the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) and therefore fall within the scope of it. As most of the debt adjustment proceedings are not included in the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, there is a regulatory gap in the European insolvency proceedings with unpleasant impacts on the free movement of labour. Fortunately, changes are coming, in the form of the EIR reform. In order to bring debt adjustment within the scope of the EIR, the Commission proposes to loosen the prerequisite concerning the legal effects, which the opening of the proceedings has on the debtor. Regarding the jurisdiction to open main proceedings, the Commission proposes that COMI (the debtor's centre of main interests) would be the place of habitual residence. The open question is, whether residency requires a certain continuity or stability. This issue is discussed in the paper taking into account recent Court of Justice of the European Union case law. The challenge of the EIR reform is that only provisions on scope and jurisdiction have been modified as to debt adjustment. One may ask, e.g. when the prerequisites concerning the opening of secondary proceedings are fulfilled if the debtor is a private individual. Copyright © 2013 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

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.     

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.     

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     

Audit Committees and Managerial Influence on Audit Quality: ‘Voluntary’ versus ‘Mandatory’ Approach to Corporate Governance

This study provides empirical evidence on how managerial influence to reduce audit quality is moderated by a combination of the audit committee (AC) form and compliance with AC best practice guidelines. There is a negative association between managerial ownership and audit fees; however, the association becomes positive when a voluntary AC follows best practices. Furthermore, the results are robust to the exclusion of industries with large frequency in the sample, the consideration of Korean business groups and recessionary times. The results of this study imply that a voluntary approach to corporate governance, which encourages companies to follow best practice guidelines in the form and composition of the AC, is more effective in controlling management than a mandatory approach. This study contributes to policy making aimed at improving AC effectiveness.     

The Chinese Approach Toward Cross‐Border Bankruptcy Proceedings: One Progressive Step Ahead

The birth of the law on enterprise bankruptcy of the People's Republic of China in 2006 was highly acclaimed. It was generally regarded as a modernized comprehensive legislative work at home and abroad. The “territorialism” approach adopted therein respecting foreign bankruptcy proceedings, however, has received floods of criticism ever since. It has left a great legal vacuum for the protection of foreign bankrupt debtor's assets in China. Foreign investors, however, may see dawn and have their confidence restored after the recent decision of the Supreme People's Court in the well‐known case of Thumb Environmental Technology Group v Sino‐Environment Technology Group, which was made on 11 June 2014. From this case on, with some limitations, the legitimate powers of foreign bankruptcy administrators might normally be ensured once foreign bankruptcy proceedings are initiated in the place of registration or place of principal business of the foreign debtor, whereby foreign administrators will be able to take effective measures to investigate, protect and dispose of the bankrupt's assets located within the Chinese territory.     

The ‘Cost’ of Climate Change: How Carbon Emissions Allowances are Accounted for Amongst European Union Companies

Following the withdrawal of IFRIC 3: Emissions Rights in 2005, European Union (EU) companies participating in an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) do not have definitive guidelines as to how to account for carbon emissions allowances. Using a content analysis methodology, this study examines the disclosed accounting policies of companies participating in the EU ETS, and reveals how, in the absence of clear guidance, they account for their carbon emissions allowances. As the accounting method adopted will impact upon a company's financial statements, these findings are of interest to accounting standards setters, investors, financial reporting preparers, auditors, and researchers.