Attitudes towards corporate social responsibility and perceived importance of social responsibility information characteristics in a decision context

This study addressed the questions of perceived importance of social responsibility information (SRI) characteristics in a decision context, as well as the attitudes of institutional investors toward social responsibility involvement. The results showed that SRI presently disclosed in company annual reports did not have any significant impact on institutional investors' decisions. However, if SRI were presented in quantified, financial form, and were focused on product improvement and fair business practices, such information would be perceived as more important for investment decisions. Attitudes toward corporate social responsibility also suggested that institutional investors were not totally opposed to company involvement in social activities. Hai Yap Teoh is associate professor in the Department of Accountancy, The University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. He has published extensively in local and international journals including Accounting, Organizations and Society and The International Journal of Accounting Education and Research. His major areas of research interest include corporate social responsibility and reporting.Godwin Shiu is teaching fellow in the Department of Accountancy, The University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. He is also doing a master's degree in accountancy.     

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.     

Does the common law power to grant cross‐border insolvency assistance apply to an insolvency winding‐up that is voluntary? The reaction to Singularis from Singapore and Hong Kong

In many common law jurisdictions, the common law power of courts to grant assistance in respect of foreign insolvency proceedings exists independently of statute. The nature of the power, however, continues to generate debate. Obiter dicta of the Privy Council suggests that no assistance is available where the foreign proceeding is a voluntary winding‐up. This article evaluates the position by reference to Singapore and Hong Kong decisions and concludes that a refusal to grant assistance in circumstances involving an insolvent voluntary winding‐up is inconsistent with the principle of modified universalism and that a broader recognition test should be adopted.