International Insolvency Review最新文献

Asset tracing and recovery (ATR) has become highly challenging in the digital age, where, with the touch of computer keys, assets can be shifted through multiple jurisdictions within minutes, creating significant challenges for recovering value. While many countries have tools to enable ATR, these tools differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and often are not recognized across borders in a manner that keeps pace with the need for rapid ATR, particularly during insolvency. This article takes stock of the myriad ATR tools available in domestic systems to discern parameters of key ATR tools that have common objectives, features, and safeguards, and that can form the basis of more standardized understanding and application of such tools. It also explores the extent to which cross-border ATR is aided by the leading frameworks for global, cross-border insolvency—the UNCITRAL Model Laws on Cross-Border Insolvency, insolvency-related judgments, and enterprise groups—in the process, revealing gaps and uncertainties. Such uncertainties can result in losses to stakeholders affected by insolvencies of different business sizes but can be particularly detrimental in small and medium enterprise (SME) cross-border insolvencies where there are typically more limited resources to chase assets. Against this backdrop, this article proposes ideas for the enhancement of the cross-border insolvency framework, to allow for effective cross-border access to information held abroad, the freezing of assets in cross-border cases, and the cross-border recovery of assets.

This article addresses a key topic in restructuring law, namely the alternative legislative rules for setting priorities for payments and rights among stakeholders in a statutory restructuring programme. The EU Member States have now implemented the Restructuring Directive (2019/1023), which gives two options for the priority rules and the outcomes of the new laws seem to vary significantly. As this legislation is important also for the efficiency of the capital markets, it is good to investigate the potential impacts the new legislative structures may bring for the process. In the article the author argues, by using the Coase Theorem, a leading theory in law and economics, that wider powers for a court to consider the interests of all parties in restructuring could be a preferable legislative solution to restructuring law. It would protect generally the creation of a restructuring surplus, as an individual class would be unable to use its rights as a tool for gaining further benefits. Relativity would stimulate the bargaining of property rights in the process and would follow the Coase Theorem, according to which bargaining between individuals or groups related to property rights will lead to an optimal and efficient outcome.

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.

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.

COVID-19 poses novel sources of uncertainty and risk to companies, but it also offers many opportunities. In the COVID-19 era, unprecedented government and central bank interventions to tackle the economic crisis precipitated by the pandemic have reinvigorated the debate on the threat of a zombification of the economy in China, caused by unviable companies being kept alive artificially. This particular consequence of COVID-19 may aggravate the economic problem of zombie companies in China, increase the risk of further zombification, and create new zombie companies. Recognizing the risk factors of zombie companies and revisiting corporate insolvency law in China, this article aims to address a gap in knowledge related to how zombie companies are being handled in practice in China in the era of the pandemic. In particular, we will investigate the definition, recognition, and uniqueness of zombie companies in the context of COVID-19, and propose several policy actions, primarily through Chinese insolvency law, to mitigate the risk of the return of zombie companies or a further zombification of the economy. It is anticipated that these measures will help to enhance China's sustainable economic recovery in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 crisis has triggered unprecedented governmental responses around the world to mitigate the effects of the pandemic, with particular attention being given to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Governments around the world have implemented economic measures in the form of direct subsidies or government-guaranteed loans, and legislated to provide mandatory relief from contractual obligations. In addition, increasing recognition of the limitations of insolvency regime in addressing the crisis for SMEs prompted many jurisdictions to change their laws. However, consistent with its free market principles, Hong Kong has only adopted economic measures and has provided limited contractual relief in favour of SME tenants. There is no SME-specific insolvency law nor is the Hong Kong government currently considering any such law reform. This article reviews the need for a temporary insolvency regime to cater to distressed but economically viable SMEs restructure their debts. Drawing on a set of interviews with Hong Kong SME owners, this author finds that they are often unaware of how insolvency law operates, their unsecured creditors are apathetic, and bankruptcy stigmatism is high. Based on a review of the frameworks in the other advanced common law jurisdictions such as the United States, Australia and Singapore, a recommendation for a simplified restructuring and liquidation framework is developed. The process is designed to be simplified and expedited and it incentivises early negotiations with creditors.

Personal insolvency proceedings are increasingly fulfilling an economic function, aimed at the rehabilitation of the debtor. The idea of the fresh start and second chance, including an early discharge of residual debts, is an important illustration thereof. Despite the fact that this evolution is noted in all personal insolvency procedures, both with regard to entrepreneurs and consumers, debt discharge used to be easier to justify and more readily granted to entrepreneurs (traders) than to non-entrepreneurs. Clear examples of the discomfort legislators seem to have with discharging unpaid debts of consumers are the EU Member States that differentiate between commercial and consumer insolvency procedures. In addition, the narrative of promoting entrepreneurship is now driving EU insolvency reforms. That (narrow) focus leads Directive 2019/1023/EU to make the same distinction between insolvent individual entrepreneurs and other natural persons, offering the former a full discharge of debt after a reasonable period of time, while providing no mandatory discharge principles for the latter. This means that not all natural persons are equal when it comes to the possibility of having a second chance, despite compelling evidence that shorter discharge periods lead to more productive individuals. The question therefore arises as to whether EU Member States should run separate discharge systems for entrepreneurs and consumers, and whether this is justified in relation to its purpose. Focusing on natural persons in an insolvency context, this article argues that the objectives of providing a fresh start and second chance, by promoting debt discharge, are as relevant for consumer debtors as they are for entrepreneurs.

How and when to determine the value of cryptoassets in insolvency proceedings? This question becomes more topical with the increasing adoption of volatile cryptoassets such as Bitcoin. As many of these assets do not have an ‘apparent’ value that may be readily ascertainable, it is not always clear how their value may be established. This presents significant challenges to their proper valuation in the context of insolvency proceedings and requires certain attention to efficiently confront the implications on the assessment of claims, the calculation of their value and the determination of the recoverable amount. Accordingly, this Article exposes the arising challenges and implications from an EU insolvency perspective, with the aim to trigger considerations for legislative interventions at EU level.