File #2563: "2019_Book_InternationalInsolvencyLaw.pdf"
Text
1|Dedication|5
1|Preface|6
1|Contents|7
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|10
2|1.1 General Comments|10
2|1.2 History of Bankruptcy Law: Bankruptcy Stigma|11
3|1.2.1 UK|12
3|1.2.2 USA|12
3|1.2.3 Australia|14
2|1.3 Human Rights and Insolvency Law|15
2|1.4 Concluding Comments|16
2|References|16
1|Chapter 2: Insolvency: International Insolvency|18
2|2.1 Juridical Nature and Aim of Insolvency Proceedings|18
2|2.2 Private International Law Meets Insolvency Law|19
2|2.3 Universalism: Territorialism|19
2|2.4 Secondary Proceedings: Local Priorities?|21
2|2.5 Modified Universalism|22
2|2.6 Is Modified Universalism Becoming Customary International Law?|24
2|2.7 Bankruptcy Forum Shopping|25
2|2.8 Forum Non Conveniens: Similar Legal Traditions|26
3|2.8.1 Case McGrath v. Riddell (“HIH”)|26
3|2.8.2 In re National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking Trust) Ltd|28
2|References|32
1|Chapter 3: Influences: Legal Transplants|35
2|3.1 General Comments|35
2|3.2 Iberoamérica|37
3|3.2.1 Argentina|37
3|3.2.2 Venezuela|40
3|3.2.3 Brazil|41
3|3.2.4 Código Bustamante|42
2|3.3 China|44
3|3.3.1 Interregional Cooperation|44
3|3.3.2 Cross-Border Insolvency [Different] Systems of China and Hong Kong|45
4|3.3.2.1 China: Mainland|45
4|3.3.2.2 Hong Kong|49
4|3.3.2.3 China–Hong Kong: A Sui Generis Relation|49
4|3.3.2.4 Cooperation on a Regional Level in Insolvency Matters|50
2|References|52
1|Chapter 4: European Union|55
2|4.1 General Comments|55
2|4.2 EEC Draft Convention|56
2|4.3 European Convention on Insolvency Proceedings 1995|57
2|4.4 European Insolvency Regulations|58
2|4.5 EC Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000|59
2|4.6 EU Recast Insolvency Regulation 848/2015|61
2|4.7 Avoidance Rules in European Union Insolvencies|65
3|4.7.1 General Comments|65
3|4.7.2 International vis attractiva concursus: Article 6(1)|66
2|4.8 Specific Issues|68
3|4.8.1 The Influence of EU Regulations on Member States’ Autonomous International Insolvency Laws|68
3|4.8.2 The Special Case of United Kingdom|69
4|4.8.2.1 Schemes of Arrangement: Pre-insolvency Initiatives|71
4|4.8.2.2 Codere Case: Good Forum Shopping?|74
4|4.8.2.3 Brexit: What Next?|75
3|4.8.3 The Influence of EU Regulations on the Global Rules on Conflict-of-Laws Matters in Insolvency Cases Drafted by the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute|76
2|References|77
1|Chapter 5: UNCITRAL Model Law 1997|81
2|5.1 General Comments|81
2|5.2 Interpretation of [Enactments of] Model Law|83
3|5.2.1 Common Law Countries|84
4|5.2.1.1 USA|84
5|5.2.1.1.1 Avoidance Actions: Re Condor Insurance Ltd|87
5|5.2.1.1.2 Public Policy Exception|89
5|5.2.1.1.3 Treatment of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy Proceedings: In re Qimonda AG|90
5|5.2.1.1.4 COMI: Definition, Description—Chapter 15—EU Regulation|93
6|5.2.1.1.4.1 General Comments|93
6|5.2.1.1.4.2 In re Oi Brasil Holdings Coöperatief U.A.|94
5|5.2.1.1.5 USA—UK: Similarities & Differences in the Enactment and Enforcement by Them of the Model Law Provisions|95
4|5.2.1.2 Australia|97
4|5.2.1.3 New Zealand|98
4|5.2.1.4 Canada|99
4|5.2.1.5 Singapore|101
3|5.2.2 Latin America|103
4|5.2.2.1 Mexico|103
5|5.2.2.1.1 Mexico—USA: Cooperation in Cross-Border Insolvency Cases?|104
5|5.2.2.1.2 Compañia Mexicana de Aviación|104
5|5.2.2.1.3 Vitro|106
4|5.2.2.2 Chile|108
4|5.2.2.3 Colombia|110
2|5.3 UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law|110
2|References|111
1|Chapter 6: Protocols|115
2|6.1 General Comments|115
2|6.2 Private International Law Issues|116
2|6.3 History: The First Cross-Border Insolvency Protocol|117
2|6.4 Recent Cases|118
3|6.4.1 Maxwell Communications|118
3|6.4.2 Lehman’s Collapse|119
4|6.4.2.1 Lehman’s Legal Structure: Lehman’s Protocol|120
4|6.4.2.2 Should Banking and Bankruptcy Be Divided?|122
2|References|124
1|Chapter 7: Groups of Companies|126
2|7.1 General Comments|126
2|7.2 National and International Regulations|128
2|7.3 European Recast Regulation|131
2|7.4 UNCITRAL Model Law 1997|134
2|7.5 Jurisprudence of Various Countries|136
3|7.5.1 Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd.|136
3|7.5.2 Cross-Border Fraud and Cross-Border Insolvency: In re Stanford International Bank Ltd Case|137
3|7.5.3 Nortel: “The Cross-Border Insolvency Case of the Century”|140
2|7.6 Virtual Territoriality|143
3|7.6.1 Virtual Contractual/Synthetic Secondary Proceedings|143
3|7.6.2 Collins & Aitkins Case|144
2|References|145
1|Chapter 8: Restructuring|149
2|8.1 Proposed EU Directive on Preventative Restructuring Frameworks|149
2|8.2 Par conditio creditorum: Pari passu|151
2|References|154
1|Chapter 9: Conclusions|156
2|9.1 Could We Consider the Existing International Texts as Successful?|156
2|9.2 Is the (Re-)Design of Insolvency Systems an Answer to International Insolvency Proceedings’ Problems?|158
2|9.3 Is the Perspective of an Extended International “Cooperation” Feasible?|158
2|References|159
1|Preface|6
1|Contents|7
1|Chapter 1: Introduction|10
2|1.1 General Comments|10
2|1.2 History of Bankruptcy Law: Bankruptcy Stigma|11
3|1.2.1 UK|12
3|1.2.2 USA|12
3|1.2.3 Australia|14
2|1.3 Human Rights and Insolvency Law|15
2|1.4 Concluding Comments|16
2|References|16
1|Chapter 2: Insolvency: International Insolvency|18
2|2.1 Juridical Nature and Aim of Insolvency Proceedings|18
2|2.2 Private International Law Meets Insolvency Law|19
2|2.3 Universalism: Territorialism|19
2|2.4 Secondary Proceedings: Local Priorities?|21
2|2.5 Modified Universalism|22
2|2.6 Is Modified Universalism Becoming Customary International Law?|24
2|2.7 Bankruptcy Forum Shopping|25
2|2.8 Forum Non Conveniens: Similar Legal Traditions|26
3|2.8.1 Case McGrath v. Riddell (“HIH”)|26
3|2.8.2 In re National Bank of Anguilla (Private Banking Trust) Ltd|28
2|References|32
1|Chapter 3: Influences: Legal Transplants|35
2|3.1 General Comments|35
2|3.2 Iberoamérica|37
3|3.2.1 Argentina|37
3|3.2.2 Venezuela|40
3|3.2.3 Brazil|41
3|3.2.4 Código Bustamante|42
2|3.3 China|44
3|3.3.1 Interregional Cooperation|44
3|3.3.2 Cross-Border Insolvency [Different] Systems of China and Hong Kong|45
4|3.3.2.1 China: Mainland|45
4|3.3.2.2 Hong Kong|49
4|3.3.2.3 China–Hong Kong: A Sui Generis Relation|49
4|3.3.2.4 Cooperation on a Regional Level in Insolvency Matters|50
2|References|52
1|Chapter 4: European Union|55
2|4.1 General Comments|55
2|4.2 EEC Draft Convention|56
2|4.3 European Convention on Insolvency Proceedings 1995|57
2|4.4 European Insolvency Regulations|58
2|4.5 EC Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000|59
2|4.6 EU Recast Insolvency Regulation 848/2015|61
2|4.7 Avoidance Rules in European Union Insolvencies|65
3|4.7.1 General Comments|65
3|4.7.2 International vis attractiva concursus: Article 6(1)|66
2|4.8 Specific Issues|68
3|4.8.1 The Influence of EU Regulations on Member States’ Autonomous International Insolvency Laws|68
3|4.8.2 The Special Case of United Kingdom|69
4|4.8.2.1 Schemes of Arrangement: Pre-insolvency Initiatives|71
4|4.8.2.2 Codere Case: Good Forum Shopping?|74
4|4.8.2.3 Brexit: What Next?|75
3|4.8.3 The Influence of EU Regulations on the Global Rules on Conflict-of-Laws Matters in Insolvency Cases Drafted by the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute|76
2|References|77
1|Chapter 5: UNCITRAL Model Law 1997|81
2|5.1 General Comments|81
2|5.2 Interpretation of [Enactments of] Model Law|83
3|5.2.1 Common Law Countries|84
4|5.2.1.1 USA|84
5|5.2.1.1.1 Avoidance Actions: Re Condor Insurance Ltd|87
5|5.2.1.1.2 Public Policy Exception|89
5|5.2.1.1.3 Treatment of Intellectual Property Licenses in Bankruptcy Proceedings: In re Qimonda AG|90
5|5.2.1.1.4 COMI: Definition, Description—Chapter 15—EU Regulation|93
6|5.2.1.1.4.1 General Comments|93
6|5.2.1.1.4.2 In re Oi Brasil Holdings Coöperatief U.A.|94
5|5.2.1.1.5 USA—UK: Similarities & Differences in the Enactment and Enforcement by Them of the Model Law Provisions|95
4|5.2.1.2 Australia|97
4|5.2.1.3 New Zealand|98
4|5.2.1.4 Canada|99
4|5.2.1.5 Singapore|101
3|5.2.2 Latin America|103
4|5.2.2.1 Mexico|103
5|5.2.2.1.1 Mexico—USA: Cooperation in Cross-Border Insolvency Cases?|104
5|5.2.2.1.2 Compañia Mexicana de Aviación|104
5|5.2.2.1.3 Vitro|106
4|5.2.2.2 Chile|108
4|5.2.2.3 Colombia|110
2|5.3 UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law|110
2|References|111
1|Chapter 6: Protocols|115
2|6.1 General Comments|115
2|6.2 Private International Law Issues|116
2|6.3 History: The First Cross-Border Insolvency Protocol|117
2|6.4 Recent Cases|118
3|6.4.1 Maxwell Communications|118
3|6.4.2 Lehman’s Collapse|119
4|6.4.2.1 Lehman’s Legal Structure: Lehman’s Protocol|120
4|6.4.2.2 Should Banking and Bankruptcy Be Divided?|122
2|References|124
1|Chapter 7: Groups of Companies|126
2|7.1 General Comments|126
2|7.2 National and International Regulations|128
2|7.3 European Recast Regulation|131
2|7.4 UNCITRAL Model Law 1997|134
2|7.5 Jurisprudence of Various Countries|136
3|7.5.1 Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd.|136
3|7.5.2 Cross-Border Fraud and Cross-Border Insolvency: In re Stanford International Bank Ltd Case|137
3|7.5.3 Nortel: “The Cross-Border Insolvency Case of the Century”|140
2|7.6 Virtual Territoriality|143
3|7.6.1 Virtual Contractual/Synthetic Secondary Proceedings|143
3|7.6.2 Collins & Aitkins Case|144
2|References|145
1|Chapter 8: Restructuring|149
2|8.1 Proposed EU Directive on Preventative Restructuring Frameworks|149
2|8.2 Par conditio creditorum: Pari passu|151
2|References|154
1|Chapter 9: Conclusions|156
2|9.1 Could We Consider the Existing International Texts as Successful?|156
2|9.2 Is the (Re-)Design of Insolvency Systems an Answer to International Insolvency Proceedings’ Problems?|158
2|9.3 Is the Perspective of an Extended International “Cooperation” Feasible?|158
2|References|159