Answering the Call of the European Court of Justice in Eurofoods a Proposed Package of Due Process Rights with a View Toward the 2012 Revision of the European Insolvency Regulation. IES WORKING PAPER 3/2011

This paper anticipates the 2012 revision of the European Insolvency Regulation, which is the sole Union legislation on the subject of cross border insolvency proceedings. The paper first describes the historical background of the Regulation. The salient point of the historical discussion is that the Regulation is the product of forty years of negotiation and arises from a historical context that is no longer applicable to current economic realities, i.e. it provides for liquidation, not reorganization, it doesn’t deal with cross border groups of companies, and it lacks an effective mechanism for transparency and creditor participation. The paper then reviews the unique hybrid jurisdictional system of concurrent universal and territorial proceedings that the Regulation imposes. It looks at this scheme from a practical viewpoint, i.e. what issues arise with concurrent proceedings in two states, involving the same assets, the same creditors, and the same company. The paper then focuses on a significant issue raised by the European Court of Justice in the Eurofoods case, i.e. the need to comply with fundamental due process principles that, while not articulated in the Regulation, lie at the core of Union law. Specifically, the paper considers the ramifications of the Court’s holding that “a Member State may refuse to recognize insolvency proceedings opened in another Member State where the decision to open the proceedings was taken in flagrant breach of the fundamental right to be heard.” In response to the Court’s direction, this paper proposes a package of due process rights, consisting principally of an accessible, efficient and useful insolvency database, the infrastructure of which already exists, but the content and use of which has not yet been developed. As part of a cohesive three part due process package, the paper also proposes the formation of cross border creditors' committees and the establishment of a European Insolvency Administrator. Finally, on the institutional level, this paper proposes that the revision of the Regulation and the development of the insolvency database not only need to be coordinated, but need to be conceptualized, managed and undertaken, not as the separate efforts of diverse institutions, but as a single, unified endeavor.

Mind the insolvency gap : lessons to be learned from audit expectations gap theory

There is a general perception that public confidence in the insolvency profession is low as the result of the recent unethical practices of a few high profile liquidators. As a result, the effectiveness of the current regulatory mechanisms has been questioned, leading to a review of the performance of insolvency practitioners and subsequent regulation proposals. The challenge for the insolvency profession is balancing the expectations of the general public whilst ensuring that the obligations and duties imposed upon them are performed to acceptable and realistic standards. It is difficult (if not impossible) for the profession to meet this challenge in the absence of a cohesive framework which identifies those issues that require further regulation as opposed to those that relate to general education on the insolvency process. This paper will examine the audit expectations gap theory in the context of insolvency practitioners and suggests that a model based on this theory provides an effective framework for evaluating the regulation of the insolvency industry.

Cross-Border Insolvency Law

This new work provides a comprehensive and theoretically rich discussion of the law on cross-border insolvency. It engages with several current multi-billion dollar insolvencies such as those of Nortel Networks and Lehman Brothers to provide the reader with state of the art knowledge of the complex problems posed by transnational insolvency. As the number of transnational insolvencies grows due to prevailing economic conditions, practitioners are increasingly required to navigate the mass of legal rules applicable to cross-border insolvency situations. The associated challenges are heightened by the diversity of legal structures employed by modern business entities and a patchwork of costly, inefficient, and unpredictable national legal rules. The response has been a proliferation of international legal instruments such as the UNCITRAL Model Law and the the EU Insolvency Regulation, supplemented by judicial practice, adding further layers of complexity. Writing from an Australian perspective, the authors analyse this network of legal rules and subsequent case law. In addition, they explain the theoretical underpinnings of these rules in an accessible manner to build a solid foundation for practice, facilitate advanced reasoning, and enable the development of sophisticated arguments for law reform. Comparative case law from jurisdictions such as the United States and United Kingdom is also included. This book is highly relevant to insolvency practitioners faced with the recovery of assets located in different jurisdictions, transactional lawyers for whom knowledge of potential insolvency pitfalls is essential, and academics. It is invaluable for students at both undergraduate and postgraduate level seeking a sound understanding of this challenging area of law.

Regulating against corporate phoenix activity

This paper considers the adequacy and efficiency of existing legal and regulatory frameworks to deal with corporate phoenix activity. Phoenix activity, which is often triggered by a solvency crisis, is estimated to cost the Australian economy up to $3 billion each year. Despite the raft of piecemeal Australian legislation directed at this activity, phoenix activity does not appear to be abating. This paper considers regulatory approaches to detection and enforcement of the underlying law. This study reveals and explores a perception that the law is deficient, and the tension that exists between the adequacy of the law and the regulatory approach.

Phoenix activity: Regulatory challenges and the law

Remedying the mischief of phoenix activity is of practical importance. The benefits include continued confidence in our economy, law that inspires best practice among directors, and law that is articulated in a manner such that penalties act as a sufficient deterrent and the regulatory system is able to detect offenders and bring them to account. Any further reforms must accommodate and tolerate legal phoenix activity. Phoenix activity pushes tolerance of entrepreneurial activity to its absolute limits. The wisest approach would be to front end the reforms so as to alleviate the considerable detection and enforcement burden upon regulatory bodies. There is little doubt that breach of the existing law is difficult and expensive to detect; and this is a significant burden when regulators have shrinking budgets and are rapidly losing feet on the ground. This front end approach may need to include restrictions on access to limited liability. The more limited liability is misused, the stronger the argument to limit access to limited liability. This paper proposes that such an approach is a legitimate next step for a robust and mature capitalist economy.

The conundrum of phoenix activity in Australia: Is further reform necessary?

Corporate phoenixing activity is estimated to cost the Australian economy $1-3 billion dollars annually. Significant questions arise as to whether existing legal frameworks are adequate to deal with phoenix activity, and whether further reform is necessary. Bills proposing reform appear to be languishing amid doubts as to their potential effectiveness. This paper will examine the conundrum presented by phoenix activity, the importance of further reform and the impact of the lack of a statutory definition of ‘phoenix activity’ on a regulatory environment that not only uses the term, but punishes offenders accused of it.

Insolvenza transfrontaliera e giurisdizione: l'esperienza del regolamento (CE) n. 1346 del 2000

L’elaborato è strutturato in quattro parti: la prima è dedicata all’inquadramento del background normativo. L’autrice affronta, con un approccio ricostruttivo, i precedenti alla redazione del regolamento e le difficoltà incontrate a causa delle resistenze degli Stati membri. Si sofferma altresì sulle norme UNCITRAL, anch’esse oggetto nel recente periodo, di numerose implementazioni. La seconda parte fotografa il ruolo della Corte di Giustizia nell’interpretazione del regolamento n. 1346/2000 ed individua i concetti fondamentali del regolamento: l’universalità attenuata, il campo di applicazione soggettivo del regolamento, la legge applicabile, il principio dell’automatico riconoscimento delle decisioni e la correlata tematica dell’ordine pubblico, nonché la figura del curatore. Si approfondisce l’attività degli Stati membri nel dotarsi di norme di coordinamento ( esemplare il caso della Spagna e della Germania) sottolineando il silenzio del legislatore italiano che, nonostante le numerose riforme in materia, a tutt’oggi non ha ideato un sistema in grado di coordinare la normativa nazionale con la struttura del regolamento europeo. Nella terza parte l'autrice approfondisce la giurisdizione nel regolamento n. 1346/2000. Si individuano le parole chiave: Comi e dipendenza, i cui significati sono sfumati seguendo le posizioni della Corte di Giustizia, (Leading Case Eurofood sino a Interedil) e si mette in discussione, nel panorama attuale, la tenuta di tali criteri giurisdizionali. Sempre intorno al concetto di Comi, si analizzano: la giurisdizione verso gruppi di imprese disciplina assente nel regolamento, i rapporti tra procedura principale e secondaria , la giurisdizione in materia di azioni connesse e/o correlate (Gourdain vs Nadler/Seagon vs Deko Marty). Il capitolo conclusivo offre una panoramica delle proposte finalizzate ad un’implementazione della struttura del regolamento sull’insolvenza. Numerose, infatti, sono le proposte a livello dottrinale e da parte degli organi comunitari in vista della scadenza del Report della Commissione Europea sulla applicazione del regolamento 1346 del 2000 (art. 46).

The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency and its Potential Role in Upholding the Rule of Law

The rule of law is understood to be a core aspect in achieving a stable economy and an ordered society. Without the elements that are inherent in this principle the possibilities of anarchy, unfairness and uncertainty are amplified, which in turn can result in an economy with dramatic fluctuations. In this regard, commentators do not always agree that the rule of law is strictly adhered to in the international legal context. Therefore, this paper will explore one aspect of international regulation and consider whether the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (1997) (‘Model Law’) and its associated Guide to Enactment and Interpretation (2013) contribute to the promotion of the key elements of the rule of law.

Contemporary consumer law : the role and effectiveness of regulation in consumer protection

This issue of the Griffith Law Review focuses on consumer law, and the pervasive nature of this area of law. We are all consumers, but do not necessarily identify as such, nor are we a homogeneous group. The boundaries of

Regulation of human stem cell research in Australia

Australia is currently well placed to contribute to the global growth of human stem cell research. However, as the science has progressed, authorities have had to deal with the ongoing challenges of regulating such a fast moving field of scientific endeavour. Australia’s past and current approach to regulating the use of embryos in human embryonic stem cell research provides an insight into how Australia may continue to adapt to future regulatory challenges presented by human stem cell research. In the broader context, a number of issues have been identified that may impact upon the success of future human stem cell research in Australia.

Stem cell technologies : regulation, patents and problems

Human embryonic stem cell research promises to deliver in the future a whole range of therapeutic treatments, but currently governments in different jurisdictions must try to regulate this burgeoning area. Part of the problem has been, and continues to be, polarised community opinion on the use of human embryonic stem cells for research. This article compares the approaches of the Australian, United Kingdom and United States governments in regulating human embryonic stem cell research. To date, these governments have approached the issue through implementing legislation or policy to control research. Similarly, the three jurisdictions have viewed the patentability of human embryonic stem cell technologies in their own ways with different policies being adopted by the three patent offices. This article examines these different approaches and discusses the inevitable concerns that have been raised due to the lack of a universal approach in relation to the regulation of research; the patenting of stem cell technologies; and the effects patents granted are having on further human embryonic stem cell research.

Commercialisation of regenerative human tissue : Regulation and reform in Australia and England, Wales and Northern Ireland

The commercialisation of therapeutic products containing regenerative human tissue is regulated by the common law, statute and ethical guidelines in Australia and England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This article examines the regulatory regimes in these jurisdictions and considers whether reform is required to both support scientific research and ensure conformity with modern social views on medical research and the use of human tissue. The authors consider the crucial role of informed consent in striking the balance between the interests of researchers and the interests of the public.

Performance Benchmarking of Australian Business Regulation : Submission to the Productivity Commission

The need to “reduce red tape” and regulatory inconsistencies is a desirable outcome (OECD 1997) for developed countries. The costs normally associated with regulatory regimes are compliance costs and direct charges. Geiger and Hoffman (1998) have noted that the extent of regulation in an industry tends to be negatively associated with firm performance. Typically, approaches to estimation of the cost of regulations examine direct costs, such as fees and charges, together with indirect costs, such as compliance costs. However, in a fragmented system, such as Australia, costs can also be incurred due to procedural delays, either by government, or by industry having to adapt documentation for different spheres of government; lack of predictable outcomes, with variations occurring between spheres of government and sometimes within the same government agency; and lost business opportunities, with delays and red tape preventing realisation of business opportunities (OECD 1997). In this submission these costs are termed adaptation costs. The adaptation costs of complying with variations in regulations between the states has been estimated by the Building Product Innovation Council (2003) as being up to $600 million per annum for building product manufacturers alone. Productivity gains from increased harmonisation of the regulatory system have been estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars (ABCB 2003). This argument is supported by international research which found that increasing the harmonisation of legislation in a federal system of government reduces what we have termed adaptation costs (OECD 2001). Research reports into the construction industry in Australia have likewise argued that improved consistency in the regulatory environment could lead to improvements in innovation (PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2002), and that research into this area should be given high priority (Hampson & Brandon 2004). The opinion of industry in Australia has consistently held that the current regulatory environment inhibits innovation (Manley 2004). As a first step in advancing improvements to the current situation, a summary of the current costs experienced by industry needs to be articulated. This executive summary seeks to outline these costs in the hope that the Productivity Commission would be able to identify the best tools to quantify the actual costs to industry.