Advertisement

Cross-Border Insolvencies

  • Erik Göretzlehner
Chapter

Abstract

Jefferson’s timeless statement is more appropriate than ever before. There has always been international commerce, but in the last decades the volume of international trade has reached unprecedented highs and the trends are globally set for growth as world exports continue to grow. Moreover, nowadays the merchants and their trade companies are replaced by globally operating international enterprises, which install subsidiaries and joint-ventures under complicated liability-limiting and tax-avoiding company structures all over the world. Furthermore, the USA and the European Union are currently negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to overcome the remaining, relatively low, economic barriers to further promote the trans-atlantic commerce.

References

  1. Aaron, R. (2014). Bankruptcy law fundamentals. New York: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  2. Adler, B., Baird, D., & Jackson, T. (2007). Bankruptcy - Cases, problems, and materials (4th ed.). New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  3. American Law Institute. (2000). Transnational insolvency project: Principles of cooperation in transnational insolvency cases among members of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
  4. American Law Institute. (2003). Transnational insolvency project, international statement of United States Bankruptcy Law. Philadelphia: American Law Institute.Google Scholar
  5. Bailey, E. (2007). Voluntary arrangement (2nd ed.). London: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, E., & Groves, H. (2007). Corporate insolvency - Law and practice (3rd ed.). London: LexisNexis Butterworths.Google Scholar
  7. Baird, D. (2014). Elements of bankruptcy (6th ed.). New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bork, R. (2000). Wie erstellt man eine Fortbestehensprognose? Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 39, 1709–1713.Google Scholar
  9. Bork, R. (2012). Rescuing companies in England and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Bork, R. (2014). Einführung in das Insolvenzrecht (7th ed.). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.Google Scholar
  11. Bowen, M. (2013). An introduction to the fundamental principles governing cross-border insolvency in an English law context. International Insolvency Law Review, 121–131.Google Scholar
  12. Brown, D. (1996). Corporate rescue - Insolvency law in practice. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  13. Buchbinder, D. (1991). Fundamentals of bankruptcy - A lawyer’s guide. New York: Little Brown & Co Law & Business.Google Scholar
  14. Clift, J. (2004). UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency - A legislative framework to facilitate coordination and cooperation in cross-border insolvency. Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law, 12, 307–345.Google Scholar
  15. Cork, K. (1982). Report of the review committee on insolvency law and practice.Google Scholar
  16. Countryman, V. (1983). Bankruptcy and the individual debtor - And a modest proposal to return to the seventeenth century. Catholic University Law Review, 32, 809–828.Google Scholar
  17. Couwenberg, O., & Lubben, S. (2015). Corporate bankruptcy tourists. The Business Lawyer, 70, 719–749.Google Scholar
  18. Dalhuisen, J. (1968). Compositions in bankruptcy - A comparative study of the laws of the E.E.C. Countries, England and the USA. Leiden: Sijthoff.Google Scholar
  19. Dreher, N., Feeney, J., & Stepan, M. (2014). Bankruptcy law manual (Vol. I, 5th ed.). Eagan: West.Google Scholar
  20. Fehrenbach, M. (2014). Haupt- und Sekundärinsolvenzverfahren. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Finch, V. (1997). Measures of insolvency law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 17, 227–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Finch, V. (2009). Corporate insolvency law - Perspectives and principles (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fletcher, I. (2005). Insolvency in private international law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Fletcher, I. (2007). The UNCITRAL model law in the United Kingdom. Insolvency Intelligence, (20), 138–141.Google Scholar
  25. Fletcher, I. (2009). The law of insolvency (4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  26. Fletcher, I., & Wessels, B. (2013). Global principles for cooperation in international insolvency cases. International Insolvency Law Review, 2–17.Google Scholar
  27. Frege, M., Keller, U., & Riedel, E. (2015). Insolvenzrecht (8th ed.). München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  28. Frind, F., & Schmidt, A. (2004). Insolvenzverwalterbestellung: Auswahlkriterien und Grenzen der Justizibilität in der Praxis. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Sanierungsrecht, 533–538.Google Scholar
  29. Frisby, S. (2007). A preliminary analysis of pre-packaged administrations. Report to The Association of Business Recovery Professionals. London: R3.Google Scholar
  30. Garner, B. (Ed.). (2014). Black’s law dictionary (10th ed.). Eagan: Thomson West.Google Scholar
  31. Goode, R. (2011). Principles of corporate insolvency law (4th ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  32. Gopalan, S., & Guihot, M. (2015). Recognition and enforcement in cross-border insolvency law: A proposal for judicial gap-filling. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 48, 1225–1284.Google Scholar
  33. Gorman, G. (2014/2015). Reorganization of maritime entities under U.S. bankruptcy laws. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 27, 97–152.Google Scholar
  34. Gres, J., & Frege, M. (2002). German Insolvency Act, German- English text. Köln: Schmidt.Google Scholar
  35. Hagemann, S. (2014). Debt Equity Swap nach englischem und deutschem Recht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des ESUG. Baden-Baden: Nomos.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hathorn, P. (2013). Cross-border insolvency in the maritime context: The United States’ Universalism vs. Singapore’s territorialism. Tulane Maritime Law Journal, 38, 239–266.Google Scholar
  37. Hoffmann, L. (1996). Cross-border insolvency: A British perspective. Fordham Law Review, 64, 2507–2520.Google Scholar
  38. Hölzle, G. (2011). Die “erleichterte Sanierung von Unternehmen” in der Nomenklatur der InsO - ein hehres Regelungsziel des RefE-ESUG. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Sanierungsrecht, 124–131.Google Scholar
  39. Hunter, M. (1999). The nature and functions of a rescue culture. Commercial Law Journal, 104, 426–463.Google Scholar
  40. Institut der Wirtschaftsprüfer in Deutschland e.V. (n.d.). Beurteilung eingetretener oder drohender Zahlungsunfähigkeit bei Unternehmen. IDW PS 800.Google Scholar
  41. Jaeger, E. (1931). Konkursordnung (6th and 7th ed.). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Keay, A., & Walton, P. (2012). Insolvency law - Corporate and personal (3rd ed.). London: Jordan Publishing.Google Scholar
  43. Kennedy, D., & Clift, S. (2000). An historical analysis of insolvency laws and their impact on the role, power and jurisdiction of today’s United States Bankruptcy court and its judicial officers. Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice, 9, 165–200.Google Scholar
  44. Kindler, P., & Nachmann, J. (Eds.). (2014). Handbuch Insolvenzrecht in Europa (4th ed.). München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  45. Kirchhof, H.-P., Eidenmüller, H., & Stürner, R. (Eds.). (2013). Münchener Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  46. Kirchhof, H.-P., Eidenmüller, H., & Stürner, R. (Eds.). (2014). Münchener Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung (Vol. 3, 3rd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  47. Landers, J. (1971/72). The shipowner becomes a bankrupt. The University of Chicago Law Review, 39, 490–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Laukemann, B. (2012). Der ordre public im europäischen Insolvenzverfahren. IPRax - Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts, 32, 207–215.Google Scholar
  49. Levinthal, L. (1918). The early history of bankruptcy law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 66, 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. LoPucki, L. (1998/1999). Cooperation in international bankruptcy: A post-universalist approach. Cornell Law Review, 84, 696–762.Google Scholar
  51. LoPucki, L. (1999/2000). The case for cooperative territoriality in international bankruptcy. Michigan Law Review, 98, 2216–2251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mankowski, P. (2011). Anerkennung Englischer Solvent Scheme of Arrangement in Deutschland. Zeitschrift Wertpapier-Mitteilungen (WM) für Wirtschafts- und Bankrecht, 65, 1201–1210.Google Scholar
  53. Marantz, G. (1997). The reorganization of a complex corporate entity: The Bramalea story. In J. Ziegel & D. Baird (Eds.), Case studies in recent Canadian insolvency reorganizations (pp. 1–39). Toronto: Carswell.Google Scholar
  54. McCormack, G. (2016). US exceptionalism and UK localism? Cross-border insolvency law in comparative perspective. Legal Studies, 36, 136–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miguens, H., & Esser, P. (2011). Wirkung eines deutschen Insolvenzverfahrens bei Vermögen im Ausland –Unterschiedliche Regelungssätze im Internationalen Insolvenzrecht am Beispiel Argentinien. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Sanierungsrecht, 277–279.Google Scholar
  56. Mokal, R. (2001). Priority as pathology: The Pari Passu Myth. Cambridge Law Journal, 60, 581–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moss, G., Fletcher, I., & Isaacs, S. (Eds.). (2009). The EC regulation on insolvency proceedings - A commentary and annotated guide (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Mucciarelli, F. (2013). Not just efficiency: insolvency law in the EU and its political dimension. European Business Organization Law Review, 14, 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Nadelmann, K. (1944). Bankruptcy treaties. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 93, 58–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nadelmann, K. (1949/1950). Creditor equality in inter-state bankruptcies: A requisite of uniformity in the regulation of bankruptcy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 98, 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Nerlich, J., Römermann, V., & Schweizer, T. (Eds.). (2014). Nerlich/Römermann Insolvenzordnung. München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  62. O’Flynn, M. (2012). The scorecard so far: Emerging issues in cross-border insolvencies under chapter 15 of the U.S. bankruptcy code. Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business, 32, 391–417.Google Scholar
  63. Olivares-Caminal, R., Douglas, J., Guynn, R., Kornberg, A., Paterson, S., Singh, D., et al. (2011). Debt restructuring. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Pape, G., Uhlenbruck, W., & Voigt-Saulus, J. (2010). Pape/Uhlenbruck/Voigt-Saulus Insolvenzrecht (2nd ed.). München: C.H. Beck.Google Scholar
  65. Paulus, C. (2005a). Das neue internationale Insolvenzrecht der USA. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Sanierungsrecht, 8, 439–441.Google Scholar
  66. Paulus, C. (2005b). Grundlagen des Insolvenzrechts - Internationales Insolvenzrecht. Deutsches Steuerrecht, 334–339.Google Scholar
  67. Paulus, C. (2011). Das englische Scheme of Arrangement - ein neues Angebot auf dem europäischen Markt für außergerichtliche Restrukturierungen. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 32, 1077–1083.Google Scholar
  68. Peck, S. (2013). Navigating the Murky waters of admiralty and bankruptcy law. Tulane Law Rev, 87, 955–994.Google Scholar
  69. Perkins, L. (2000). A defense of pure universalism in cross-border corporate insolvencies. New York University Journal of International Law & Politics, 32, 787–828.Google Scholar
  70. Podewils, F. (2010). Zur Anerkennung von Chapter 11 in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für das gesamte Insolvenzrecht, 209–213.Google Scholar
  71. Pühl, H. (2016). Der Debt Equity Swap im Insolvenzplanverfahren. Köln: RWS Verlag.Google Scholar
  72. Radelet, S., & Sachs, J. (1998). The onset of the East Asian crisis. In H. Scott & P. Wellons (Eds.), International finance: Transactions, policy, and regulation (p. 1231). New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  73. Ragan, A. (2010/2011). COMI strikes a discordante Note: Why U.S. Courts are not in complete Harmony despite Chapter 15 Directives. Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal, 27, 117–168.Google Scholar
  74. Schäfer, P., & Frischemeier, A. (2012). Corporate finance by way of debt equity swaps in light of new amendments to the German insolvency statute. Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation, 27, 195–201.Google Scholar
  75. Schillig, M. (2010). The transition from corporate governance to bankruptcy governance - Convergence of German and US law? European Company and Financial Law Review, 7, 116–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Schmidt, J. (2010). “Schnellverschlusskappe”: Grundsatzurteil des BGH zur Anerkennung von Verfahren nach Chapter 11 US Bankruptcy Code. DAJV Newsletter, 35, 54–59.Google Scholar
  77. Schmitd, A. (Ed.). (2017). Hamburger Kommentar zum Insolvenzrecht (6th ed.). Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  78. Schwarz, J. (2015). Der Debt-Equity-Swap als Instrument der Unternehmenssanierung nach deutschem und englischem Recht - Eine vergleichende Untersuchung praxisrelevanter rechtlicher Problemkreise bei der Umsetzung von Debt-Equity-Swaps nach deutschem und englischem Recht. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaft.Google Scholar
  79. Seitz, G. (2009). Interaction between admiralty and bankruptcy law: Effects of globalization and recurrent tensions. Tulane Law Review, 83, 1339–1391.Google Scholar
  80. Smid, S. (2004). Deutsches und Europäisches Internationales Insolvenzrecht. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  81. Stong, E. (2006). United States bankruptcy and insolvency law and policy. In J. Silkenat & C. Schmerler (Eds.), The law of international insolvencies and debt restructurings (pp. 409–427). New York: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
  82. Stürner, R. (1986). Prinzipien der Einzelzwangsvollstreckung. Zeitschrift für Zivilprozess International, 291–332.Google Scholar
  83. Treiman, I. (1927). A history of the English law of bankruptcy, with special reference to the origins, continental sources, and early development of the principal features of the law. Oxford: University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  84. Uhlenbruck, W. (Ed.). (2015). Insolvenzordnung (14th ed.). München: Franz Vahlen.Google Scholar
  85. Vallender, H. (2010). Insolvenzkultur gestern, heute und morgen. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenz- und Sanierungsrecht, 838–844.Google Scholar
  86. Veder, M. (2004). Cross-border insolvency proceedings and security rights. San Diego: Harcourt Professional Publishing.Google Scholar
  87. Warren, C. (1935). Bankruptcy in United States history. Washington D.C.: Beard Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Wessels, B. (2006). International insolvency law (2nd ed.). Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
  89. Westbrook, J. (1991). Theory and pragmatism in global insolvencies: Choice of law and choice of forum. American Bankruptcy Law Journal, 65, 457–490.Google Scholar
  90. Westbrook, J. (1999/2000). A global solution to multinational default. Michigan Law Review, 98, 2276–2328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Westbrook, J. (2004/2005). Universalism and choice of law. Penn State International Law Review, 23, 625–637.Google Scholar
  92. Westbrook, J. (2006). The duty to seek cooperation in multinational insolvency cases. In H. Peter, N. Jeandin, & J. Kilborn (Eds.), The challenges of insolvency law reform in the 21st century (pp. 361–372). Zürich: Schulthess Juristische Medien.Google Scholar
  93. Wood, P. (2007a). Conflicts of laws and international finance (Vol. 6). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  94. Wood, P. (2007b). Principles of international insolvency (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
  95. Wood, P. (2013). The bankruptcy ladder of priorities. Business Law International, 14, 209–244.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Göretzlehner
    • 1
  1. 1.Frankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations