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 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.     

Recognition of Debt Restructuring and Resolution Measures under the European Union Regulatory Framework

Under the proposed Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), member states will be required to provide for bail‐in powers to restructure failing financial institutions. At this moment, the Dutch, French, UK and German legislator already provide public authorities with resolution powers. In order to be effective in debt restructuring of failing (non‐)financial institutions, the measures taken by the resolution authorities need to be enforceable (before all courts) and effective in the entire European Union. Given the fact that not all the firm's debt is issued in the home jurisdiction, the question of recognition is critically important. In regard of non‐financial firms, the Dutch, UK, French and German jurisdictions provide for court proceedings to impose a collective settlement reached by the debtor and the majority of its creditors binding on the opposing minority. Out‐of‐insolvency plans approved by the court are recognised under the Brussels I Regulation. If the EU Insolvency Regulation reform proposal is adopted, these court‐approved debt restructuring plans in insolvency situations will be subject to the recognition regime of this regulation. Credit institutions, insurance undertakings, investment undertakings holding funds or securities for third parties and collective investment undertakings are excluded from the scope of the Insolvency Regulation whereas the scope of application of the Reorganisation and Winding Up Directive is limited to credit institutions. The regime under the future BRRD and the Single Resolution Mechanism is limited to credit institutions. National (private international) law determines the recognition of resolution measures taken by the authorities of another member state. Copyright © 2014 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.     

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.     

Rwanda Legal Framework on Insolvency: Problems and Proposals for Reform

The purpose of this article is to explore some key insolvency issues, which will be highly selective for this article, and to identify the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the existing framework on insolvency. Rwanda does not have an efficient and effective framework on insolvency, and the article argues that there is a need for an improved insolvency law regime. In view of the weaknesses and inconsistencies, it is vital to consider international best practices such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Legislative Guide on Insolvency and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency as the basis needed to deal with different aspects or elements of the Rwanda insolvency law. The value of this article lies in the insights it offers into the current framework on insolvency and the opportunity given to address the inconsistencies, weaknesses and uncertainties that invariably arise from the law. Copyright © 2015 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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Pre‐packin' in the UK

A pre‐pack administration is one where a deal has already been agreed prior to the company entering administration. The company's business will commonly be sold to the incumbent management team immediately the company is placed into administration. The business survives relatively intact but will have managed to jettison its unsecured debt. The business is saved and jobs are saved. The pre‐pack will usually require the support of the company's bankers. Recent research suggests that pre‐packs may constitute between 50% and 80% of all insolvent going concern sales. The UK version of a pre‐packaged administration appears to have been rare until the administration process under the Insolvency Act 1986 was significantly amended in 2002, permitting a company to be placed into administration without a court order. The UK version of pre‐packaged administration does not involve any plan being approved by different classes of creditor nor for the court to be involved in approving activities of the administrator before or after the plan is put into effect. The paper considers whether or not pre‐pack administrations fit into the statutory framework of the Insolvency Act, the professional ethics requirements of being an insolvency practitioner and the equitable rules governing fiduciaries. Some aspects of the policy underpinning pre‐packs are also considered in particular the decision to allow insolvency practitioners to claim pre‐appointment fees as an expense of the administration. This decision appears to herald a change in government policy. This policy change is also considered. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Britain and Brexit: A forecast of the future of employment protection during corporate insolvency

Brexit has produced a lot of uncertainties in the UK, not the least of which are the future of protections that have been derived from EU social policy Directives. Arguably, the UK's membership in the EU has pushed it further into a socially liberal and protective framework that it might not have adopted had it remained outside of the EU's sphere of influence. The question now is what direction the UK will take with regard to both the rescue culture and the social protections, both of which have been highly influenced by EU law and policy. The UK has ever been the “odd man out” in the EU, springing as it does from a significantly different legal origin than the Franco/German model at the heart of the EU. Examining the developmental path of other common law jurisdictions (America, Canada, and Australia) whose legal systems are derived from the British may be instructive in relation to the direction the UK might have taken had it not joined the EU, with a particular focus on the employment protections derived from the EU which are often applicable during insolvency and rescue procedures. An analysis of this counterfactual position may then also provide a clue or forecast as to the direction that the UK may take following Brexit.     

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

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

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

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

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.     

The Costs and Benefits of Regulating the Market for Corporate Insolvency Practitioner Remuneration

The release by the Australian Treasury on Friday, 7 November 2014 of the Insolvency Law Reform Bill (ILRB) 2014 throws the spotlight once again on corporate insolvency law reform in Australia. Significantly, the ILRB 2014 identifies amongst its purposes two objectives with respect to Corporate Insolvency Practitioner (CIP) remuneration reform. Namely, to promote market competition on price and quality and improve the overall confidence in the professionalism and competence of insolvency practitioners. This paper considers whether the proposed CIP remuneration reforms outlined in the ILRB 2014 will effectively achieve these objectives. Where it is considered that reforms are misdirected, further changes, informed by UK insolvency reform proposals, are considered.     

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.