International Insolvency Review最新文献

This article deals with the European Union's efforts to harmonise the insolvency laws of its Member States. In particular, it explains the Directive on restructuring and insolvency, its key features and disparities and its transformation in national laws. Further, the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on harmonising certain aspects of insolvency law is introduced.

This article sets out general principles for designing the role of corporate insolvency courts. The authors identify four general considerations relevant to that design: (a) the sophistication and development of the relevant private markets and private law, (b) the applicable background corporate law principles, (c) the competence—in terms of experience and sophistication, capacity and resources, efficiency, and neutrality and lack of corruption—of the courts in question, and (d) the availability of alternative systems through forum and venue shopping or other forms of exit. Having identified these considerations, the article then explores how each affects the role that insolvency courts should play and the level of discretion courts should exercise. The authors also discuss the extent to which other procedural or insolvency provisions can substitute for judicial oversight and discretion.

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.