Search results

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, it is important to consider the effectiveness of insolvency law given the increase in companies facing financial distress. Current insolvency law was not designed in the context of the unprecedented challenges of the pandemic. Therefore, it may not provide the framework needed to assist the rehabilitation of distressed companies that is important to economic recovery. The purpose of this paper is to briefly discuss the rethinking of insolvency law policy with a view to maximising opportunities for rescue and rehabilitation.

The commentary offers suggestions on how insolvency law can maximise opportunities for rehabilitation. The approach is to consider competing theoretical perspectives on the objective of insolvency law and provide commentary on rethinking key insolvency law provisions to better meet the needs of distressed businesses in the unprecedented circumstances of the pandemic and into the future.

This paper concludes that in the context of the pandemic insolvency policy that is value-based and debtor-friendly is needed to promote rehabilitation. Insolvency law should refocus on debtors and rehabilitation rather than being excessively focussed on the interest of creditors.

This paper offers a unique and timely commentary on the capacity of insolvency law to respond to the unforeseen COVD-19 pandemic.

The applicable jurisdiction for insolvency proceedings, as provided by the Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, is the court of the Member State where the debtor's center of main interest (COMI) is located (Article 3(1)). The Regulation, however, does not provide a comprehensive definition of the COMI. This paper seeks to explore the meaning and developments behind the meaning of COMI as influenced by judicial reasoning and conflicts across Member States.

The study centres around the emerging jurisprudence and analyses case law across Member States in order to draw conclusions on the meaning of COMI and the emerging concepts. Extensive consideration of statutory interpretation, case reports and judicial comment is present in order to inform and develop conclusions.

In the absence of a definition it appears that the only relevant European guidance emerges from recital 13 and Article 3 (1). With little guidance in the Regulation, it has therefore been left to national courts to decide how the notion of COMI should be interpreted. Determining the COMI has emerged as one of the most controversial aspect and the principle point of legal conflict, with some highly debated cases within member states’ courts. On the basis of the case law, it is suggested that the interpretation of COMI is more flexible in UK and Italian courts. The approach adopted in continental Europe is referred to as the “centre of operations approach”, i.e. the debtor's COMI has to be determined by the place where he is “ascertainable by third parties”. The Anglo Saxon approach, on the other hand, is known as the “mind of management approach”, i.e. the debtor's COMI must be situated where decisions are actually made. The latter seems to enjoy a more practical and accessible approach.

Not only will the findings assist those seeking to understand the process and COMI requirements across member states but it will also assist those researchers seeking to understanding the comparative and conflict of law barriers to pan‐European insolvency proceedings.

This paper aims to highlight how an interpretative approach to law as posited by Dworkin may be used to remedy the tension between employment protection and corporate rescue laws.

This paper adopts a doctrinal and theoretical approach to law.

The tension between corporate rescue and employment protection laws affects both employees’ and business owners’ policy objectives on corporate insolvency. The theoretical perspectives of both the traditionalists and proceduralists have so far failed to provide a clear approach on how this tension may be balanced or remedied. This paper proposes that this tension may be remedied through interpretation, that is, by adopting Dworkin’s Interpretative Approach to Law.

Most researchers and academics have written extensively about the tension between corporate rescue and employment protection, but this paper is the first of its kind to propose a remedy to this tension through interpretation.

This paper aims to provide guidance to law reformers in Uganda on the best approach to insolvency law reform and the objectives that should be furthered.

This paper provides a literature review.

A balance of various objectives serves the purpose of a modern insolvency law system.

These findings would enable future reforms in Uganda to be streamlined towards a particular objective rather than a general approach to insolvency regulation.

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the possible relation between public policy measures, particularly relating to currency exchange rates, capital flow mechanisms and cross-border insolvency by describing the current state of insolvency regulation in Latin America and some cases that exemplify this public-private dynamic.

The first part of the chapter is based on literature review and content analysis to show the current situation of the regulation of insolvency in Latin America and the evolution of policies shaping the flow of capital and the exchange rates. The second part illustrates the proceedings in selected countries, particularly for Colombia and Venezuela.

The analysis led to the finding that some countries’ policy mechanisms such as in the case of Venezuela might lead to a problem regarding national companies involved in an insolvency proceeding, particularly when the company alleges that public policy in force have changed circumstances leading to the impossibility of paying foreign-located liabilities.

The chapter is based largely on literature review and available data, public legal documents and cases relating public policy and cross-border insolvency; however, insolvency proceedings are not of public domain; thus, there is a large amount of information related with the mentioned cases that remain undisclosed.

This chapter provides a theoretical and practical perspective to analyze cross-border insolvency from a local regulatory framework. It also demonstrates the possible link between public policy and cross-border insolvency.

This chapter aims to investigate to what extent differences in legal systems affect cross-border insolvency. Specifically, it aims to answer the following research questions: What is the relationship between multinational status and firm death rates? To what extent can the legal system affect the pattern of firms’ death across countries? How can the cross-border insolvency legal rules produce firms’ death or survival through corporate restructuring and bailout?

We apply survival methods and estimate a discrete-time hazard model in which we look for the effect of foreign ownership on firm death, controlling for firm- and industry-specific covariates. In doing this we analyse the determinants of firms’ death and crisis distinguishing Italian foreign-owned firms according to the legal system of the country where they have their ‘centre of main interests’ (COMI).

Our main findings reveal that Italian firms owned by foreign multinationals are more likely to exit and to be in crisis than national firms. In addition, Italian foreign-owned firms which have their COMI in a Common law country, compared with those having their COMI in a Civil law country, exhibit a lower risk of death and a higher likelihood of surviving the crisis.

This analysis was limited to all Italian firms. Therefore, it might be interesting to verify if there is a sort of country/sectoral heterogeneity in the firms’ behaviour. In addition, the analysis could be extended to the Italian firms investing abroad (i.e. Domestic MNEs).

Overall, our study enriches our understanding of the determinants of foreign-owned firms’ survival in Italy and highlights the important role assumed by the countries’ legal environment. Although the vast majority of legal systems establishes that business crisis management is no longer aimed at repressing and sanctioning, but rather at preserving the entrepreneurial complex, and rescuing and maintaining business activity, we provide some insights into how differences between Common law countries and Civil law countries affect cross-border insolvency.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the origin of the development of insolvency laws in China and Russia and explores the evolving role of the states in the legislative process.

The study is conducted based on the analysis of historical materials and the relevant secondary sources written in Chinese and Russian.

The paper argues that the development of the insolvency laws in China and Russia underlines the diverging perceptions by the states about the ways to improve economic performance through reforming their respective state enterprise system. On the other hand, the unsatisfactory utilisation of the laws in the these countries revealed the incompleteness of the wider institutional reform that opened up possibilities for predatory exploitations and corruptive practices which in turn upset the market-building in these developing economies.

This study highlights that by bring back the state into the analysis, the competing ideas, interests and institutions in the development of insolvency laws can be identified.

The past decade, with its unprecedented surge in financial activity and financial crises, has been one of increased awareness on the part of both regulatory authorities and market participants of the potential of payment systems for propagating and amplifying financial shocks, especially in a cross‐border context. This has led the European Commission to propose, on 30th May 1996, a Directive aimed at reducing systemic risk. (This has been the subject of an earlier contribution by the same author, pub‐lished in Vol 5, No 1 of the Journal.) In the meanwhile, the European Parliament has delivered its opinion and the Council has adopted a common position. This paper examines the contents of this common position.

The Asian financial turmoil has resulted in widespread corporate difficulties and collapses in the Asia‐Pacific region. There is an urgent need of corporate recovery and insolvency administration in the area. This paper aims at reviewing and analysing the insolvency law and practices in the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). Foreign investors should possess the above knowledge in order to better protect themselves with their investments in the PRC. It is also envisaged that with improvement in corporate recovery procedures and reforms in insolvency administration, the PRC can pursue its economic performance further in the twenty‐first century with its accession to the World Trade Organisation.

The paper aims to examine the question whether legislative reform is the silver bullet for the problems generated by the failure of a company which is exposed to claims arising from the non-fulfilment of its environmental obligations. The limited capacity of the UK insolvency regime to facilitate the fulfilment of a debtor company’s environmental obligations is often illustrated with reference to some significant judicial decisions. However, no real picture has emerged of the frequency with which these issues arise, based on which firm proposals for reform could be advanced. This paper argues that greater regard should be paid to existing mechanisms which provide a means of enabling insolvency risks to be managed or minimised because these point towards the scope for these issues to be resolved through the environmental protection framework rather than through reliance on company and/or insolvency law.

Research was conducted into the statutory and non-statutory regulations (such as statutory guidance) and case law principles, which underpin the treatment of the claims against an insolvent (or potentially insolvent) company resulting from its environmental activities. This included research into policies which have a bearing on this area, developed through governmental and civic consultations and studies.

The paper concludes that the likelihood of a case for legislative reform being made out is weak, and the focus should accordingly shift to strengthening the effectiveness of existing law, policy and practice.

This paper is the first (in the UK context) to challenge the perceived need for reform in this area, engaging with recent examples of such corporate failures and the impact of recent legislative and policy developments.