Cross-border insolvency and legal transnationalisation

The last twenty years have seen an explosion of approaches for dealing with an inevitable consequence of globalised markets, that of cross-border insolvencies. This article places phenomena such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency and Cross-border Insolvency Agreements (also known as Protocols) within the context of developing laws on international commercial transactions. First it briefly describes the evolution of the international commercial law (sometimes known as the law merchant) to provide a context to understanding the international commercial responses to the problems created by cross-border insolvencies. Next, it outlines the range of approaches being adopted by States and multilateral bodies in recent decades to resolve cross-border insolvency issues. Finally it draws some preliminary conclusions on the potential implication of this transnationalisation process and broader international commercial law perspective, in particular on the capacity of Cross-Border Insolvency Agreements to address cross-border insolvency issues.

Cross-border insolvency

Panellist commentary on delivered conference papers on the topic of Cross-border Insolvency.

The emerging framework of cross-border insolvency in and around Australia : Saad Investments, Japan Airlines and Lehman Brothers – part one

Recent decades have witnessed a global acceleration of legislative and private sector initiatives to deal with Cross-Border insolvency. Legislative institutions include the various national implementations of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) published by the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL).3 Private mechanisms include Cross-Border protocols developed and utilised by insolvency professionals and their advisers (often with the imprimatur of the judiciary), on both general and ad hoc bases. The Asia Pacific region has not escaped the effect of those developments, and the economic turmoil of the past few years has provided an early test for some of the emerging initiatives in that region. This two-part article explores the operation of those institutions through the medium of three recent cases.

The emerging framework of cross-border insolvency in and around Australia : Saad Investments, Japan Airlines and Lehman Brothers – Part Two

Recent decades have witnessed a global acceleration of legislative and private sector initiatives to deal with Cross-Border insolvency. Legislative institutions include the various national implementations of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) published by the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL).3 Private mechanisms include Cross-Border protocols developed and utilised by insolvency professionals and their advisers (often with the imprimatur of the judiciary), on both general and ad hoc bases. The Asia Pacific region has not escaped the effect of those developments, and the economic turmoil of the past few years has provided an early test for some of the emerging initiatives in that region. This two-part article explores the operation of those institutions through the medium of three recent cases.

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.

Recognition and enforcement in cross-border insolvency law: A proposal for judicial gap-filling

This Article analyzes the recognition and enforcement of cross-border insolvency judgments from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia to determine whether the UNCITRAL Model Law’s goal of modified universalism is currently being practiced, and subjects the Model Law to analysis through the lens of international relations theories to elaborate a way forward. We posit that courts could use the express language of the Model Law text to confer recognition and enforcement of foreign insolvency judgments. The adoption of our proposal will reduce costs, maximize recovery for creditors, and ensure predictability for all parties.

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.

China's Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (EBL 2006): Cross-Border Perspectives

With China's new Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (‘EBL 2006’) having come into effect on 1 June 2007, a critical issue arises as to the extent to which Article 5, as a cross-border provision, will strengthen creditors' rights across jurisdictions. In this paper attention will be paid in particular to how the Chinese People's Court is likely to exercise its discretion to grant recognition to a foreign court ruling, and vice versa. The paper will start with a brief introduction to the circumstances under which Article 5 came into being. The evolution of China's cross-border insolvency practices will be examined through an analysis of an inbound case of B&T (2002) as well as an outbound one of GITIC (2005). In spite of the fact that China has not adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law, essential factors deemed necessary to be considered by China's court and its counterparts in US and UK are to be highlighted throughout the paper. Although the effect of Article 5 remains to be seen, it will be critically analysed focusing on some controversial issues.

What further benefit, if any, might Australia get from the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases?

In 2006, the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) established a Transnational Insolvency Project and appointed Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (Netherlands) as Joint Reporters. The objective was to investigate whether the essential provisions of the ALI Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (ALI-NAFTA Principles) and the annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases (ALI-NAFTA Guidelines) may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. In 2012, Professor Fletcher and Professor Wessels presented the report Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“ALI-III Report”) to the Annual Meetings of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute. In 2013, the Australian Academy of Law (AAL) provided support to the authors to undertake research on the possible benefits for Australia of courts and insolvency administrators of referring to the ALI-III Report when addressing international insolvency cases. This AAL project was at the request of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. This research Report compares the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases with the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 and the UNCITRAL Model Law as it has been adopted and has force of law in Australia. Further, it examines the Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases in light of Australian cross-border insolvency and procedural law. Finally, it makes brief reference to and commentary on the Global Rules on Conflict–of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases annexed to the ALI-III Report from the perspective of Australian choice of law rules.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.

Developments in court to court communications in International insolvency cases

As business increasingly operates on a global basis, courts are called upon more often to adjudicate insolvency cases with international connections. The financial collapse of Lehman Brothers Holding Inc (‘Lehman Holdings’) provides a recent example where courts across many jurisdictions were called upon to determine issues arising from a multistate insolvent enterprise. Lehman Holdings filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States on 15 September 2008. Lehman Brothers was the fourth largest investment bank in America and the largest company ever to file for bankruptcy in the United States. However the effects of its collapse were felt worldwide, including within Australia.