We assess the credit market impact of allowing mortgage “strip-down” as a foreclosure-prevention measure, where strip-down reduces the principal of underwater residential mortgages to the current market value of the property for homeowners in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Our identification is provided by a series of U.S. court decisions that introduced strip-down in parts of the U.S. and a Supreme Court ruling that abolished it. We find that the Supreme Court decision led to a small, short-term reduction in mortgage interest rates and a small, short-term increase in mortgage approval rates, but no long-term effects, and the circuit court decisions did not consistently affect mortgage terms. These results suggest that strip-down would be an effective foreclosure-prevention program, because it would have only small and transient effects on the supply of mortgage loans.
{"title":"Using Bankruptcy to Reduce Foreclosures: Does Strip-Down of Mortgages Affect the Supply of Mortgage Credit?","authors":"Wenli Li, I. Tewari, M. White","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2533446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2533446","url":null,"abstract":"We assess the credit market impact of allowing mortgage “strip-down” as a foreclosure-prevention measure, where strip-down reduces the principal of underwater residential mortgages to the current market value of the property for homeowners in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Our identification is provided by a series of U.S. court decisions that introduced strip-down in parts of the U.S. and a Supreme Court ruling that abolished it. We find that the Supreme Court decision led to a small, short-term reduction in mortgage interest rates and a small, short-term increase in mortgage approval rates, but no long-term effects, and the circuit court decisions did not consistently affect mortgage terms. These results suggest that strip-down would be an effective foreclosure-prevention program, because it would have only small and transient effects on the supply of mortgage loans.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"64 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73142073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The most important unsolved problem for international insolvency law is the treatment of enterprise groups or groups of companies. The principal structures for the coordination of trans-border insolvency cases are the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1996) and the European Union Council Regulation 1346/2000, Insolvency Proceedings, both are drafted on the assumption that international enterprises doing business or otherwise involved in more than one country are single legal entities, whereas virtually every such enterprise is a group of legal entities. Both UNCITRAL and the European Union are presently working on solutions to this problem. This article proposes a solution to this problem through the creation of an international insolvency case for the enterprise group, which would serve as an umbrella for the insolvency cases of each constituent. The umbrella case would be commenced in the country where the group’s ECOMI (enterprise center of main interests) is located: the ECOMI concept is built on the COMI (center of main interests) concept in the existing international insolvency regimes. The country where the ECOMI case is commenced would then have jurisdiction for the main insolvency proceedings for each of the insolvency cases of the constituent entities – in contrast to the existing regime that requires that the main proceeding for each entity be commenced in the country where its own COMI is located. The article proposes solutions to numerous theoretical difficulties with this proposal, including the extent to which the law of the registered office, instead of the default rule of the law of the forum) should apply to the insolvency cases for each of the entities; forum shopping; the appointment of common professionals (office holders); the expanded use of secondary proceedings in the countries where the respective COMIs are located; providing explicitly for expanded coordination and communication obligations with respect to all of the members of the enterprise group with pending insolvency cases. The article contrasts this proposal with substantive consolidation, which is controversial and should be restricted to limited circumstances. Finally, the article explores the impact of this proposal on the long-standing controversy between the universalism and territorialism approaches to international insolvency law.
{"title":"Coordination of Insolvency Cases for International Enterprise Groups: A Proposal","authors":"Samuel L. Bufford","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2382123","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2382123","url":null,"abstract":"The most important unsolved problem for international insolvency law is the treatment of enterprise groups or groups of companies. The principal structures for the coordination of trans-border insolvency cases are the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1996) and the European Union Council Regulation 1346/2000, Insolvency Proceedings, both are drafted on the assumption that international enterprises doing business or otherwise involved in more than one country are single legal entities, whereas virtually every such enterprise is a group of legal entities. Both UNCITRAL and the European Union are presently working on solutions to this problem. This article proposes a solution to this problem through the creation of an international insolvency case for the enterprise group, which would serve as an umbrella for the insolvency cases of each constituent. The umbrella case would be commenced in the country where the group’s ECOMI (enterprise center of main interests) is located: the ECOMI concept is built on the COMI (center of main interests) concept in the existing international insolvency regimes. The country where the ECOMI case is commenced would then have jurisdiction for the main insolvency proceedings for each of the insolvency cases of the constituent entities – in contrast to the existing regime that requires that the main proceeding for each entity be commenced in the country where its own COMI is located. The article proposes solutions to numerous theoretical difficulties with this proposal, including the extent to which the law of the registered office, instead of the default rule of the law of the forum) should apply to the insolvency cases for each of the entities; forum shopping; the appointment of common professionals (office holders); the expanded use of secondary proceedings in the countries where the respective COMIs are located; providing explicitly for expanded coordination and communication obligations with respect to all of the members of the enterprise group with pending insolvency cases. The article contrasts this proposal with substantive consolidation, which is controversial and should be restricted to limited circumstances. Finally, the article explores the impact of this proposal on the long-standing controversy between the universalism and territorialism approaches to international insolvency law.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"86 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2382123","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68163542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The secondary status assigned to women is the result of a culturally imposed system of meanings supporting a particular division of power and labor. Dividing the sexes and assigning distinct roles and statuses provides the basis of the social order. These structures of meaning are so deeply ingrained that they are barely recognized for the violence they impose on the financial experiences of single women.The impact of the economic inferiority and the principle of exclusion is invisible financial suffering. The applications of bankruptcy law and processes appear to be gender neutral. They appear to be rational and fair. However, their impact is uneven and skewed to a particular perception of a woman’s economic status. BAPCPA’s emphasis on women as support creditors tied to the absent and irresponsible male breadwinner, reinforces the dominant gendered economic roles. It obscures the fact that the majority of single bankruptcy petition filers in the United States are women.
{"title":"Visible Women: Locating Women in Financial Failure, Bankruptcy Law and Bankruptcy Reform","authors":"L. E. Coco","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2404915","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2404915","url":null,"abstract":"The secondary status assigned to women is the result of a culturally imposed system of meanings supporting a particular division of power and labor. Dividing the sexes and assigning distinct roles and statuses provides the basis of the social order. These structures of meaning are so deeply ingrained that they are barely recognized for the violence they impose on the financial experiences of single women.The impact of the economic inferiority and the principle of exclusion is invisible financial suffering. The applications of bankruptcy law and processes appear to be gender neutral. They appear to be rational and fair. However, their impact is uneven and skewed to a particular perception of a woman’s economic status. BAPCPA’s emphasis on women as support creditors tied to the absent and irresponsible male breadwinner, reinforces the dominant gendered economic roles. It obscures the fact that the majority of single bankruptcy petition filers in the United States are women.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"46 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87212947","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, there is widespread uncertainty as to what other proceedings may constitutionally fall within a bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. Supreme Court jurisprudence has been cryptic regarding the constitutional limitations of non-Article III courts, but the Court has identified a "public rights exception" to the general rule that the judicial power must be exercised only by judges with life tenure and salary protection. This public rights exception has not yet been explicitly extended to a bankruptcy proceeding, but the reasoning of the Court strongly suggests that a trustee’s motion to avoid preferences would fall under the public rights exception, as a proceeding stemming exclusively from bankruptcy law and necessary to resolve claims against the estate. Accordingly, and contrary to what most scholars have suggested, preference proceedings fit comfortably within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, even after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern.
在最高法院对斯特恩诉马歇尔案(Stern v. Marshall)做出裁决之后，对于哪些其他诉讼程序可能在宪法上属于破产法院的核心管辖权，人们普遍存在不确定性。最高法院的判例一直对非第三条法院的宪法限制含糊其辞，但法院确定了一般规则的“公共权利例外”，即司法权只能由终身任期和薪金保护的法官行使。这一公共权利例外尚未明确扩展到破产程序，但法院的推理强烈表明，受托人避免偏好的动议将属于公共权利例外，因为这是一项完全源于破产法的程序，是解决对遗产索赔的必要条件。因此，与大多数学者的建议相反，即使在最高法院对斯特恩案作出裁决之后，优先程序也很适合破产法院的管辖范围。
{"title":"Preferences are Public Rights","authors":"Brook E. Gotberg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2307186","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2307186","url":null,"abstract":"In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, there is widespread uncertainty as to what other proceedings may constitutionally fall within a bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction. Supreme Court jurisprudence has been cryptic regarding the constitutional limitations of non-Article III courts, but the Court has identified a \"public rights exception\" to the general rule that the judicial power must be exercised only by judges with life tenure and salary protection. This public rights exception has not yet been explicitly extended to a bankruptcy proceeding, but the reasoning of the Court strongly suggests that a trustee’s motion to avoid preferences would fall under the public rights exception, as a proceeding stemming exclusively from bankruptcy law and necessary to resolve claims against the estate. Accordingly, and contrary to what most scholars have suggested, preference proceedings fit comfortably within the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts, even after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Stern.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89724416","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This is a paper on the Settlement Clause of the Argentine Bonds that apply to the renegotiation of the Argentina debt in default and particularly about its effects on the debt that was subject to the exchanges carried on in 2005 and 2010. This paper argues that under the Best Creditor clause Argentina would have the possibility of reaching out a settlement with the "holdout" creditors without affecting the rights of the so called exchange bondholders.
{"title":"Argentina Debt -- The Settlement Clause","authors":"Eugenio A. Bruno","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2456055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2456055","url":null,"abstract":"This is a paper on the Settlement Clause of the Argentine Bonds that apply to the renegotiation of the Argentina debt in default and particularly about its effects on the debt that was subject to the exchanges carried on in 2005 and 2010. This paper argues that under the Best Creditor clause Argentina would have the possibility of reaching out a settlement with the \"holdout\" creditors without affecting the rights of the so called exchange bondholders.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"87 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80918970","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2013-10-15DOI: 10.1163/9789004260207_011
E. Sussman, Jennifer L. Permesly
Insolvency proceedings are often lauded for providing a relatively quick and efficient means of resolving disputes among insolvent debtors and their creditors. Historically, insolvency courts have adhered to the principle of “territoriality,” which posits that bankruptcy proceedings should be brought in the jurisdiction where property or assets of the debtor are located, and that the courts in that forum have jurisdiction and priority over those assets. Based on this principle, in a typical domestic insolvency proceeding, one forum will exercise jurisdiction over the debtor and all of its assets; the adjudicator can thus make decisions that will bind all of the creditors seeking a piece of those assets. The principle of territoriality has become difficult to apply in our increasingly globalized world. Today’s multinational corporations operate in multiple countries and hold assets across the globe. Thus a debtor and its affiliate entities may be subject to multiple insolvency proceedings in various jurisdictions. The efficiency gains of a single-forum insolvency process no longer exist, and instead debtors can find themselves in intractable disputes or subject to inconsistent decisions issued by multiple courts. Over the last two decades, there have been various proposals to address the complications inherent in cross-border insolvency proceedings. In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, which brought a wake of insolvent debtors with massive international presence, the issue has received increased attention. This paper Recently explores several ways in which international arbitration can be used to bring efficiency and consistency to cross-border insolvency proceedings.
{"title":"Capturing the Benefits of Arbitration for Cross Border Insolvency Disputes","authors":"E. Sussman, Jennifer L. Permesly","doi":"10.1163/9789004260207_011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004260207_011","url":null,"abstract":"Insolvency proceedings are often lauded for providing a relatively quick and efficient means of resolving disputes among insolvent debtors and their creditors. Historically, insolvency courts have adhered to the principle of “territoriality,” which posits that bankruptcy proceedings should be brought in the jurisdiction where property or assets of the debtor are located, and that the courts in that forum have jurisdiction and priority over those assets. Based on this principle, in a typical domestic insolvency proceeding, one forum will exercise jurisdiction over the debtor and all of its assets; the adjudicator can thus make decisions that will bind all of the creditors seeking a piece of those assets. The principle of territoriality has become difficult to apply in our increasingly globalized world. Today’s multinational corporations operate in multiple countries and hold assets across the globe. Thus a debtor and its affiliate entities may be subject to multiple insolvency proceedings in various jurisdictions. The efficiency gains of a single-forum insolvency process no longer exist, and instead debtors can find themselves in intractable disputes or subject to inconsistent decisions issued by multiple courts. Over the last two decades, there have been various proposals to address the complications inherent in cross-border insolvency proceedings. In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, which brought a wake of insolvent debtors with massive international presence, the issue has received increased attention. This paper Recently explores several ways in which international arbitration can be used to bring efficiency and consistency to cross-border insolvency proceedings.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75890129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper, commissioned by the Seattle City Council, takes the measure of Seattle's post-bubble negative equity and foreclosure problems, estimates numbers of underwater loans that have benefitted by existing federal, state and local programs, and recommends several options that the City has not yet explored but ought to consider. For underwater but not yet defaulted loans, these include 'lease swap' arrangements of a kind advocated by the author since 2011 and public-private eminent domain partnerships of the kind advocated by the author since the housing bust began. For already foreclosed properties, the author recommends a variation on the 'land bank' approach being pioneered in several other U.S. cities.
{"title":"Post-Bubble Foreclosure-Prevention and -Mitigation Options in Seattle","authors":"R. Hockett","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2326775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2326775","url":null,"abstract":"This paper, commissioned by the Seattle City Council, takes the measure of Seattle's post-bubble negative equity and foreclosure problems, estimates numbers of underwater loans that have benefitted by existing federal, state and local programs, and recommends several options that the City has not yet explored but ought to consider. For underwater but not yet defaulted loans, these include 'lease swap' arrangements of a kind advocated by the author since 2011 and public-private eminent domain partnerships of the kind advocated by the author since the housing bust began. For already foreclosed properties, the author recommends a variation on the 'land bank' approach being pioneered in several other U.S. cities.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76327790","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The Law on Bankruptcy of the Republic of Armenia (hence LBA or the Law) makes it possible to declare the debtor bankrupt and register creditor’s claim if the letter one entails from indisputable claims. Indeed, those indirect rules on approval of the claim in combination with the rules of moratorium apparently put the law enforcement practice either in non-conformity with the principal task of bankruptcy proceedings or deprive an entity from the right to fair trial (article 18, the Constitution of Armenia ). Though the court is vested only in to approve the indisputable nature of the claim, the law enforcement practice has drifted far from this crucial point of departure suggesting us entirely different case law practice. Needless to say, that this kind of case law is not in compliance with the features of bankruptcy proceedings, however it provides a reasonable opportunity to the potential creditors to resolve the dispute and to apply for the registration of relevant claim under the same bankruptcy procedure. And this is in the case when the potential creditor possesses no right to initiate a civil lawsuit under the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Armenia (hence CPC) given to the limitations existing as a part of moratorium.
{"title":"The Boundaries to Approve the Indisputability of the Claims in Bankruptcy Proceedings","authors":"Gor Samvel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2325680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2325680","url":null,"abstract":"The Law on Bankruptcy of the Republic of Armenia (hence LBA or the Law) makes it possible to declare the debtor bankrupt and register creditor’s claim if the letter one entails from indisputable claims. Indeed, those indirect rules on approval of the claim in combination with the rules of moratorium apparently put the law enforcement practice either in non-conformity with the principal task of bankruptcy proceedings or deprive an entity from the right to fair trial (article 18, the Constitution of Armenia ). Though the court is vested only in to approve the indisputable nature of the claim, the law enforcement practice has drifted far from this crucial point of departure suggesting us entirely different case law practice. Needless to say, that this kind of case law is not in compliance with the features of bankruptcy proceedings, however it provides a reasonable opportunity to the potential creditors to resolve the dispute and to apply for the registration of relevant claim under the same bankruptcy procedure. And this is in the case when the potential creditor possesses no right to initiate a civil lawsuit under the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Armenia (hence CPC) given to the limitations existing as a part of moratorium.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84635844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Leverage cross sections more than a few years apart differ markedly, with similarities evaporating as the time between cross sections lengthens. Many firms have high and low leverage at different times, but few keep debt-to-assets ratios consistently above 0.500. Capital-structure stability is the exception, not the rule, occurs primarily at low leverage, and is virtually always temporary, with many firms abandoning low leverage during the post-war boom. Industry-median leverage varies widely over time. Target-leverage models that place little or no weight on maintaining a particular leverage ratio do a good job replicating the substantial instability of the actual leverage cross-section.
{"title":"How Stable are Corporate Capital Structures?","authors":"H. DeAngelo, Richard Roll","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1784204","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1784204","url":null,"abstract":"Leverage cross sections more than a few years apart differ markedly, with similarities evaporating as the time between cross sections lengthens. Many firms have high and low leverage at different times, but few keep debt-to-assets ratios consistently above 0.500. Capital-structure stability is the exception, not the rule, occurs primarily at low leverage, and is virtually always temporary, with many firms abandoning low leverage during the post-war boom. Industry-median leverage varies widely over time. Target-leverage models that place little or no weight on maintaining a particular leverage ratio do a good job replicating the substantial instability of the actual leverage cross-section.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79586840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper considers the attractiveness of the UK Personal Insolvency regime to citizens of other member states in the EU, in particular German and Irish nationals. It raises questions concerning the effect of the EU Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 and the concept of COMI together with the somewhat unintended consequences of facilitating the availability of English personal insolvency discharge to such nationals. It describes the practical effect of some of the high profile bankruptcy cases in Ireland and the issues surrounding recognition or otherwise of such proceedings.
{"title":"Bankruptcy Tourism in the UK: Why and How?","authors":"Irene Lynch Fannon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2351850","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2351850","url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers the attractiveness of the UK Personal Insolvency regime to citizens of other member states in the EU, in particular German and Irish nationals. It raises questions concerning the effect of the EU Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 and the concept of COMI together with the somewhat unintended consequences of facilitating the availability of English personal insolvency discharge to such nationals. It describes the practical effect of some of the high profile bankruptcy cases in Ireland and the issues surrounding recognition or otherwise of such proceedings.","PeriodicalId":44862,"journal":{"name":"American Bankruptcy Law Journal","volume":"186 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77048986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：