Preventive Restructuring Frameworks: A Possible Solution for Financially Distressed Multinational Corporate Groups in the EU

  • Daoning ZhangEmail author


The difficulties of the effective rescue of multinational corporate groups (MCGs) in the EU have long been recognized. The limitations of the existing MCG rescue solutions, including substantive consolidation, procedural consolidation and procedural cooperation, mean that there is no panacea for preserving the value of financially distressed MCGs for creditors. It seems that a possible way to preserve the value of the MCGs worth rescuing is to avoid their free-fall insolvency at an early stage. In practice, many pan-EU groups decide to use English schemes of arrangement to stave off group-wide insolvency. This phenomenon corresponds to the recent European Commission’s proposal for a Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks which aims to provide Member States with a minimum harmonization of restructuring tools to rescue financially distressed companies and to avoid their insolvency. Also, the new EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings has expended its scope to incorporate preventive restructuring procedures. This article will explore how preventive restructuring frameworks can work as a supplementary solution to preserve value for MCGs and examine whether this may improve the undesirable status quo.


Multinational corporate groups Corporate rescue Preventive restructuring frameworks EIR recast 


  1. Armour J et al (2017) Brexit and corporate citizenship. ECGI Working Paper No 340/2017, pp 1–39. Accessed 24 Sept 2018
  2. Asimacopoulos K, Bickle J (2013) European debt restructuring handbook: leading case studies from the post-Lehman cycle. Globe Law and Business, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayotte K, Skeel DA Jr (2013) Bankruptcy law as a liquidity provider. Univ Chi Law Rev 80:1557–1624Google Scholar
  4. Baird DG (1998–1999) Bankruptcy’s uncontested axioms. Yale Law J 108:573–600Google Scholar
  5. Baird DG (2005–2006) Substantive consolidation today. B C Law Rev 47:5–22Google Scholar
  6. Baird DG, Morrison ER (2005) Adversary proceedings in bankruptcy: a sideshow. Am Bankruptcy Law J 79:951–972Google Scholar
  7. Barney J (1991) Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. J Manag 17:99–120Google Scholar
  8. Best J, Pacey A (2014) APCOA schemes of arrangement: take 1. Insolvency Intelligence 27:119–121Google Scholar
  9. Block-Lieb S (1992–1993) Fishing in the muddy waters: clarifying the common pool analogy as applied to the standard for commencement of a bankruptcy case. Am Univ Law Rev 22:337–431Google Scholar
  10. Block-Lieb S (2015) Austerity, debt overhang, and the design of international standards on sovereign, corporate, and consumer debt restructuring. Ind J Glob Legal Stud 22:487–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Blumberg PI (1990) The corporate entity in an era of multinational corporations. Del J Corp Law 15(2):283–376Google Scholar
  12. Blumberg PI (1993) The multinational challenge to corporation law—the search for a new corporate personality. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Bork R, Mangano R (2016) European cross-border insolvency law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Bork R, Van Zwieten K (2016) Commentary on the European Insolvency Regulation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Bowmer S (2000) To pierce or not to pierce the corporate veil—why substantive consolidation is not an issue under English law. J Int Bank Law 15:193–197Google Scholar
  16. Buckley PJ, Strange R (2011) The governance of the multinational enterprise: insights from internalization theory. J Manag Stud 48(2):460–470Google Scholar
  17. Bufford SL (2012) Coordination of insolvency cases for international enterprise groups: a proposal. Am Bankruptcy Law J 86:685–748Google Scholar
  18. Carcea MC et al (2015) The economic impact of rescue and restructuring frameworks in the EU. Discussion paper 004. Publications Office of the European Union. Accessed 16 Jan 2017
  19. Charnley W, Milman D (2013) Restructuring tools available to the UK corporate law practitioner: established devices and new models. Sweet Maxwell’s Co Law Newsl 337:1–4Google Scholar
  20. Coase R (1937) The nature of the firm. Economica 4:386–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Conner K (1996) A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organ Sci 7:477–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Couwenberg O, Lubben SJ (2013) Essential corporate bankruptcy law. University of Groningen Faculty of Law Research Paper Series No 04/2013, pp 39–61Google Scholar
  23. Dahlin P et al (2005) Netquakes—describing effects of ending business relationships on business networks. Working paper to be presented at IMP 2005 Rotterdam. Accessed 17 Oct 2018
  24. Davis RB et al (2016) The modular approach to micro, small, and medium enterprise insolvency. Accessed 24 Sept 2018
  25. De Vette E (2011) Multinational enterprise groups in insolvency: how should the European Union act? Utrecht Law Rev 7(1):216–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dyer JH, Singh H (1998) The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of inter-organizational competitive advantage. Acad Manag Rev 23(4):660–679CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eidenmueller H (2016) What is an insolvency proceeding? Law Working Paper No 335/2016, pp 1–26Google Scholar
  28. Eidenmüller H (2016) Comparative corporate insolvency law. European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI), Law Working Paper No 319, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  29. Eidenmüller H (2017) Contracting for a European insolvency regime. Eur Bus Org Law Rev 18:273–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Eidenmüller H, Zwieten KV (2015) Restructuring the European business enterprise: the EU Commission recommendation on a new approach to business failure and insolvency. European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI), Law Working Paper No 301/2015, pp 1–36Google Scholar
  31. Finch V (2008) Corporate rescue in a world of debt. J Bus Law 8:756–777Google Scholar
  32. Galanis M (2011) Vicious spirals in corporate governance: mandatory rules for systemic (re)balance? Oxf J Legal Stud 31(2):327–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Garcimartín FJ (2016a) The EU insolvency regulation recast: Scope and rules on jurisdiction. Accessed 7 Jan 2017
  34. Garcimartín F (2016b) Universal effects of corporate restructuring proceedings: a view from Europe. In: Parry R, Omar P (eds) Reimagining rescue. Insol Europe, Nottingham, pp 77–90Google Scholar
  35. Garrido JM (2010–2011) No two snowflakes the same: the distributional question in international bankruptcies. Tex Int Law J 46:459–488Google Scholar
  36. Grant RM (1996) Toward a knowledge-based theory of the firm. Strateg Manag J 17:109–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Graulich TE (2006) Substantive consolidation—a post-modern trend. ABI Law Rev 14:527–566Google Scholar
  38. Gulati R (2000) Strategic networks. Strateg Manag J 21:203–215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hanrahan L, Mehta S (2015) A comparative overview of transatlantic inter-creditor agreement. In: Mellor T (ed) The international comparative legal guide to: lending and secured finance, 3rd edn. GLG, London, pp 45–53Google Scholar
  40. Harner MM (2015) The value of soft variables in corporate reorganizations. Univ Ill Law Rev 509:509–542Google Scholar
  41. Hennart JF (2009) Theories of the multinational enterprise. In: Rugman AM (ed) The Oxford handbook of international business, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 125–145Google Scholar
  42. Ho VH (2012) Theories of corporate groups: corporate identity reconceived. Seton Hall Law Rev 42:879–951Google Scholar
  43. Hooley R (2012) Release provisions in inter-creditor agreements. J Bus Law 3:213–234Google Scholar
  44. Hopt KJ (2015) Groups of companies. A comparative study on the economics, law and regulation of corporate groups. Accessed 17 Oct 2018
  45. Howard C, Hedge B (2014) Restructuring law and practice, 2nd edn. LNUK, LondonGoogle Scholar
  46. Jackson JH (1986) The logic and limits of bankruptcy law. Harvard University Press, HarvardGoogle Scholar
  47. Jackson TH, Skeel Jr DA (2013) Bankruptcy and economic recovery, pp 1-38. Accessed 17 Oct 2018
  48. Janger T (2001) Crystals and mud in bankruptcy law: judicial competence and statutory design. Ariz Law Rev 43:559–624Google Scholar
  49. Janger EJ (2009–2010) Virtual territoriality. Colum J Transnat Law 48:401–441Google Scholar
  50. Kastrinou A (2016) Comparative analysis of the informal pre-insolvency procedures of the UK and France. Int Insolv Rev 25:99–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kastrinou A, Jacobs L (2016) Pre-insolvency procedures: a United Kingdom and South African perspective. In: Parry R, Omar P (eds) Reimagining rescue. INSOL Europe, Nottingham, pp 91–108Google Scholar
  52. Kipnis AM (2007–2008) Beyond UNCITRAL: alternatives to universality in transnational insolvency. Denv J Int Law Policy 36:155–189Google Scholar
  53. Kogut B, Zander U (1993) Knowledge of the firm and the evolutionary theory of the multinational corporation. J Int Bus Stud 24:625–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Kortmann L, Veder PM (2015) The uneasy case for schemes of arrangement under English law in relation to non-UK companies in financial distress: pushing the envelope? NIBLeJ 3(13):239–261Google Scholar
  55. Kuipers JJ (2012) Schemes of arrangement and voluntary collective redress: a gap in the Brussels I Regulation. J Priv Int Law 8(2):225–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Madaus S (2015) Insolvency proceedings for corporate groups under the new Insolvency Regulation. Accessed 1 March 2017
  57. Makadok R (2001) Toward a synthesis of the resource-based and dynamic-capability views of rent creation. Strateg Manag J 22:387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. McCormack G (2007) Control and corporate rescue—an Anglo-American evaluation. Int Comp Law Q 56(3):515–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. McCormack G (2014a) Bankruptcy forum shopping: the UK and US as venues of choice for foreign companies. Int Comp Law Q 63(04):815–842CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. McCormack G (2014b) Reforming the European Insolvency Regulation: a legal and policy perspective. J Priv Int Law 10(1):41–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. McCormack G (2017) Business restructuring law in Europe: making a fresh start. J Corp Law Stud 17(1):167–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mevorach I (2005) The road to a suitable and comprehensive global approach to insolvencies within multinational corporate groups. JPLP 15:1–85Google Scholar
  63. Mevorach I (2009) Insolvency within multinational enterprise groups. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Milman D (2001) Schemes of arrangement: their continuing role. Insolv Law 4:145–146Google Scholar
  65. Milman D (2011) Schemes of arrangement and other restructuring regimes under UK company law in context. Sweet Maxwell’s Co Law Newsl 301:1–4Google Scholar
  66. Milman D (2016) UK restructuring law review. Sweet Maxwell’s Co Law Newsl 383:1–4Google Scholar
  67. Mooney W Jr (2004) A normative theory of bankruptcy law: bankruptcy as (is) civil procedure. Wash Lee Law Rev 61:931–1061Google Scholar
  68. Moss G, Fletcher I, Isaacs A (2016) The EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  69. Muchlinski PT (2007) Multinational enterprises and the law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Omar PJ (2014) Upstreaming rescue: pre-insolvency proceedings and the European Insolvency Regulation. Int Co Commer Law Rev 25:14–20Google Scholar
  71. Paterson S (2014) Rethinking the role of the law of corporate distress in the twenty-first century’s LSE law. Society and Economy Working Papers No 27/2014Google Scholar
  72. Paterson S (2017) Reflections on English law. Schemes of arrangement in distress and proposals for reform. Accessed 23 June 2017
  73. Payne J (2013) Cross-border schemes of arrangement and forum shopping. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 14:563–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Payne J (2014) Schemes of arrangement theory structure and operation. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Payne J (2017) The role of the court in debt restructuring. or Accessed 17 Oct 2018
  76. Perera AC, Mendiola ET (2015) UK schemes of arrangement are outside the scope of EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings. What does outside actually mean? Analysis GA&P. Accessed 3 Apr 2016
  77. Pilkington C (2013) Schemes of arrangement in corporate restructuring. Sweet and Maxwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  78. Prentice DD (1998–1999) Some aspects of the law relating to corporate groups in the United Kingdom. Conn J Int Law 13:305–328Google Scholar
  79. Rajak H (2009) Corporate group and cross-border bankruptcy. Tex Int Law J 44:521–546Google Scholar
  80. Rasmussen RK (1994) The ex-ante effects of bankruptcy reform on investment incentives. Wash Univ Law Q 72:1159–1212Google Scholar
  81. Rasmussen RK (2007) Where are all the transnational bankruptcies—the puzzling case for universalism. Brook J Int Law 32:983–1003Google Scholar
  82. Rasmussen RK (2016) The end of bankruptcy revisited. Accessed 23 March 2017
  83. Rasmussen RK, Skeels DA Jr (1995) The economic analysis of corporate bankruptcy law. Am Bankruptcy Inst Law Rev 3:85–116Google Scholar
  84. Rotem Y (2008) Pursuing preservation of pre-bankruptcy entitlements: corporate bankruptcy laws self-executing mechanisms. Berkeley Bus Law J 5:79–130Google Scholar
  85. Rugman AM (1986) New theories of the multinational enterprise: an assessment of internalization theory. Bull Econ Res 38(2):101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rugman AM (2009) Reconciling internalization theory and the eclectic paradigm. Multinatl Bus Rev 18(1):1–12Google Scholar
  87. Schwartz A (2005) A normative theory of business bankruptcy. Yale Law Rev 91:1199–1266Google Scholar
  88. Storey T, Turner C (2014) Unlocking EU law, 4th edn. Routledge Taylor Francis Group, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Teichmann C (2015) Corporate groups within the legal framework of the European Union: the group-related aspects of the SUP proposal and the EU freedom of establishment. Eur Co Financ Law Rev 12:202–229Google Scholar
  90. Tollenaar N (2017) The European Commission’s proposal for a directive on preventive restructuring proceedings. Insolv Intell 30(5):65–81Google Scholar
  91. Tung F (2001–2002) Is international bankruptcy possible? Mich J Int Law 23:31–102Google Scholar
  92. Van Galen R (2012) Insolvent groups of companies in cross-border cases and rescue plan. Accessed 4 June 2016
  93. Weijs RJ (2012) Harmonisation of European insolvency law and the need to tackle two common problems: common pool and anti-commons. Int Insolv Rev 21:67–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Weijs RJ, Wessels B (2015) Proposed recommendations for the reform of chapter 11 U.S. Bankruptcy code. Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No 2015-14Google Scholar
  95. Wessels B (2011) What is an insolvency proceeding anyway? Accessed 1 Feb 2017
  96. Wessels B (2015) The EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (recast). Accessed 3 March 2017
  97. Wessels B (2016) The European Union Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (recast): the first commentaries. Eur Co Law 13(4):129–135Google Scholar
  98. Wessels B, Madaus S (2017) Rescue of business in insolvency law instrument of the European Law Institute. European Law Institute. Accessed 4 June 2017
  99. Wheeler D, Colbert B, Freeman R (2003) Focusing on value: reconciling corporate social responsibility, sustainability and a stakeholder approach in a network. World J Gen Manag 28:1–28Google Scholar
  100. White MJ (1994) Does chapter 11 save economically inefficient firms? Wash Univ Law Q 72:1319–1340Google Scholar
  101. Windsor J (2009) An overview of creditor schemes of arrangement. Linklaters Publication, pp 1–16. Accessed 23 Nov 2018
  102. Windsor J (2010) International recognition of schemes of arrangement. JIBFL 9:523–530Google Scholar
  103. Yeowart G (2009) Encouraging company rescue: what changes are required to UK insolvency law? Law Financ Mark Rev 3:517–531CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Zhang D (2017) Reconsidering procedural consolidation for multinational corporate groups in the context of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation. Int Insolv Rev 26(3):332–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ph.D. GraduateUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Lecturer in LawCanterbury Christ Church UniversityCanterburyUK

Personalised recommendations