Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Applicability of Rules of Private International Law

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cross-Border Insolvency

  • 1010 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter explores how the rules of private international law in respect of choice of law and choice of forum affect the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and the interpretation of the Model Law.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Rosalind Mason, ‘Cross-Border Insolvency Law; Where Private International Law and Insolvency Law Meet’, in Paul J Omar (ed), International Insolvency Law: Themes and Perspectives (Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2008), 27, 40.

  2. 2.

    Ian F Fletcher The Law of Insolvency (Sweet & Maxwell, 2002) 737 [28-008].

  3. 3.

    See e.g., Re Interedil Srl [2012] Bus LR 1582, 1592-3 [55]; Re Staubitz-Schreiber [2006] BCC 639; Enasarco v Lehman Brothers Finance SA [2014] EWHC 34 (Ch) (16 January 2014); Ackers v Samba Financial Group (2014)16 ITELR 808; [2014] EWHC 540 (Ch) (28 February 2014).

  4. 4.

    Cambridge Gas Transport Corporation Limited v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings PLC [2007] 1 AC 508, 516 [13, 14].

  5. 5.

    Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236.

  6. 6.

    Ho, see footnote 724, 577-8.

  7. 7.

    Davies, Bell and Brereton, see footnote 116, 263 [12.19].

  8. 8.

    Fletcher, see footnote 3, 494.

  9. 9.

    Angus Francis, ‘Cross-border Insolvency in East Asia: Formal and Informal Mechanisms and UNCITRAL’s Model Law’ in Roman Tomasic (ed), Insolvency Law in East Asia (Ashgate Publishing, 2006), 535, 538.

  10. 10.

    United Nations Commission on Trade Law, UNCITRAL Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation, GA Res 61/112 (16 December 2009).

  11. 11.

    John A.E. Pottow, ‘The Myth (and Realities) of Forum Shopping in Transnational Insolvency’ (2006) 32 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 785.

  12. 12.

    Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2011] Ch 133,146 [31].

  13. 13.

    See cases referred in Chapter 5 under Art 20.

  14. 14.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, General Assembly, Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law, UN Publications Sales No E.05.V.10 (United Nations, 2005) 67–71.

  15. 15.

    Block-Lieb and Halliday, see footnote 49, 896.

  16. 16.

    Fletcher, Insolvency in Private International Law, National and International Approaches see footnote 42, 455 [8.19].

  17. 17.

    Art 2(q).

  18. 18.

    Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2011] Ch 133, 146 [31]. This issue was not commented on in the appeal see Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236.

  19. 19.

    Collins, Lord et al. (eds), Dicey, Morris and Collins on The Conflict of Laws (Sweet & Maxwell, 15 ed, 2012) see footnote 158, 1645 [30R-203]. © Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited 2012. Reproduced with permission of The Licensor through PLSclear.

  20. 20.

    Look Chan Ho ‘Applying Foreign Law—Realising the Model Law’s Potential’ (2010) 24 Journal of International Banking Law and Regulation 522, 557 citing Re Condor Insurance Ltd., 601 F.3d 319, 324-9 (5th Cir, 2010).

  21. 21.

    Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd. [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch) (30 June 2014) [106–108].

  22. 22.

    Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236.

  23. 23.

    Fibria Celulose S/A v Pan Ocean Co Ltd. [2014] EWHC 2124 (Ch) (30 June 2014) [89, 90].

  24. 24.

    Sheldon, see footnote 146, 128-31.

  25. 25.

    Lastra, see footnote 43, 227 [9.81]; Ho, see footnote 75, 668.

  26. 26.

    Lastra, see footnote 43, 227 [9.82]; Ho, see footnote 75, 552.

  27. 27.

    Cambridge Gas Transport Corporation Limited v Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Navigator Holdings PLC [2007] 1 AC 508, 518 [22].

  28. 28.

    Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2011] Ch 133, 159 [60].

  29. 29.

    Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236, 274 [115–117], 278 [132].

  30. 30.

    Ibid.

  31. 31.

    Rubin v Eurofinance SA [2013] 1 AC 236, 278 [132].

  32. 32.

    US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, United States Congress, Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (8 April 2005), HR Report Pub L No 109-31, 116.

  33. 33.

    Re Ran, 607 F.3d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir, 2010).

  34. 34.

    Bob Wessels ‘Will Uncitral Bring Changes to Insolvency Proceedings Outside the USA and Great Britain? It Certainly Will!’ (2006) 3 International Corporate Rescue 200, 205 citing recommendation 31 in the UNCITRAL Guide.

  35. 35.

    Westbrook, ‘Locating the Eye of the Financial Storm’ see footnote 474, 1020.

  36. 36.

    Re Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit, 389 B.R 325, 335-6 (Dist SD NY, 2008).

  37. 37.

    Re Stanford International Bank Ltd. [2009] BPIR 1157; [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch) (3 May 2009).

  38. 38.

    Re Stanford International Bank Ltd. [2011] Ch 33.

  39. 39.

    Ho, see footnote 75, 194–200.

  40. 40.

    Guide to Enactment of The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency UN Doc A/CN.9/442 [31].

  41. 41.

    Bruno Zeller, ‘Statutory Interpretation—the three stage approach’ [2014] 1 Curtain Law and Taxation Review 31.

  42. 42.

    See TCL Air Conditioning (Zhongshan) Co Ltd. v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia (2013) 295 ALR 596.

  43. 43.

    Tucker, re Aero Inventory (UK) Ltd. v Aero Inventory (UK) Ltd. [No 2] (2009) 181 FCR 374, 378 [22]; Raithatha v Ariel Industries PLC [2012] FCA 1526 (30 November 2012) [39].

  44. 44.

    Australian Department of Treasury, Corporate Law Economic Reform Program’s Proposals for Reform: Cross-Border Insolvency—Promoting International Cooperation and Coordination Paper No. 8 (2002).

  45. 45.

    Ibid 377-8 [21, 22].

  46. 46.

    See Interpretation Act, RSC 1985, c I-21; Interpretation Act 1999; Interpretation Act 1978 c30; 1 USC.

  47. 47.

    Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) s 6.

  48. 48.

    Explanatory Memorandum, Cross-Border Insolvency Bill 2008 (Cth), 21 [23, 24].

  49. 49.

    TCL Air Conditioner (Zhongshan) Co Ltd. v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia (2013) 295 ALR 596, 599 [8].

  50. 50.

    See Ackers v Saad Investment Company Ltd. (in liq) (2010) 190 FCR 285, 295; Gainsford v Tannenbaum (2012) 293 ALR 699, 707 [37]; Ackers v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 57 (14 May 2014) [43].

  51. 51.

    Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, opened for signature 26 May 1969 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980); [1974] ATS 2, art 5.

  52. 52.

    Ibid art 1(a).

  53. 53.

    See Bruno Zeller, ‘Statutory Interpretation—the three stage approach’ [2014] 1 Curtain Law and Taxation Review 31.

  54. 54.

    Ackers v Saad Investment Company Ltd. (in liq) (2010) 190 FCR 285, 291-2 [30].

  55. 55.

    TCL Air Conditioning (Zhongshan) Co Ltd. v Judges of the Federal Court of Australia (2013) 295 ALR 596, 599 [8] (French CJ and Gageler J). Referring to the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration.

  56. 56.

    Judith May Wade, The Interrelationship of Private International Law Principles and International Corporate Insolvency (Ph.D. Book, University of Melbourne 2002) 261-74.

  57. 57.

    Ibid 185, 192-3.

  58. 58.

    See Fletcher and Wessels, see footnote 23, Appendix II; The Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases and Global Guidelines for Court to Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases, presented to the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute on 23 May 2012 and unanimously approved by the International Insolvency Institute membership at its 12th Annual Conference, Court de Cassation, Paris, 22 June 2012, http://iiiglobal.org/component/jdownloads/viewdownload/36/5897.html.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Honorary Fellow, University of Western Australia and Partner, Thomson Geer, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

    Neil Hannan B.Ec, LLB (Monash) Ph.D (UWA)

Authors
  1. Neil Hannan B.Ec, LLB (Monash) Ph.D (UWA)
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil Hannan B.Ec, LLB (Monash) Ph.D (UWA) .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hannan, N. (2017). Applicability of Rules of Private International Law. In: Cross-Border Insolvency. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5876-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5876-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5875-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5876-9

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation