Skip to main content

Comparative Analysis of the Enactment and Interpretation of the Chapter II of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency—Access of Foreign Representatives and Creditors to Courts in This State

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Cross-Border Insolvency

Abstract

Chapter II grants foreign representatives the right to approach the domestic courts in each of the States, without conceding jurisdiction to those courts, as well as to issue domestic insolvency proceedings and to participate in domestic insolvency proceedings. Articles 13 and 14 provide for foreign creditors to have equality with domestic creditors in relation to their rights before the domestic courts.

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 16.99
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.

    See, eg, Fletcher, Insolvency in Private International Law, National and International Approaches see footnote 42, 473 [8.49].

  2. 2.

    Winter & Winter [2010] FamCA 933 (15 October 2010) [210].

  3. 3.

    Companies Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36, s 46(1); Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3 s 269(1).

  4. 4.

    11 USC § 1509 (b) (2012); Re Loy 380 BR 154, 165 (Bankr, ED Va, 2007).

  5. 5.

    11 USC § 1509(f) (2012); Re Iida, 377 BR 243, 257–8 (BAP, 9th Cir, 2007).

  6. 6.

    11 USC § 101(5) (2012).

  7. 7.

    337 BR 243, 258 (BAP, 9th Cir, 2007).

  8. 8.

    Re Loy, 380 BR 154, 165 n.2 (Bankr, ED Va, 2007).

  9. 9.

    28 USC § 959 (2012).

  10. 10.

    CT Investment Management Co. LLC v Cozumel Caribe S.A de C. 482 BR 96 (Bankr, SD NY, 2012).

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    CT Investment Management Co., LLC v Carbonell, 2012 WL 92359 (Dist, SD NY, 11 January 2012) 4.

  13. 13.

    Re Vitro SAB de CV, 701 F.3d 1031 (5th Cir, 2012).

  14. 14.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Guide to Enactment of The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, UN Doc A/CN.9/442 (19 December 1997) as approved by GA Res A/RES/52/158 (1997) (30 January 1998) and amended by GA Res A/RES/68/107 (2013) (16 December 2013) [109].

  15. 15.

    Ibid [98, 99].

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    Wood, see footnote 12, 957 [31-031].

  18. 18.

    See, eg, Golick and Wasserman, ‘Canada’ in Ho, see footnote 75, 82.

  19. 19.

    11 USC § 1511(a) (2012).

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    11 USC § 1511(b) (2012).

  22. 22.

    Re AWAL Bank, BSC, 455 BR 73, 80 (Bankr, SD NY, 2011).

  23. 23.

    Ibid 77.

  24. 24.

    Ibid 81.

  25. 25.

    Ibid.

  26. 26.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Guide to Enactment of The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, UN Doc A/CN.9/442 (19 December 1997) as approved by GA Res A/RES/52/158 (1997) (30 January 1998) and amended by GA Res A/RES/68/107 (2013) (16 December 2013) [115].

  27. 27.

    Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, RSC 1985, c B-3, s274; Companies Creditors Arrangement Act, RSC 1985, c C-36, s 51.

  28. 28.

    Fletcher, see footnote 42, 476 [8.54].

  29. 29.

    See Raulin v Fischer [1911] KB 93.

  30. 30.

    Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) s 12.

  31. 31.

    Steven Golick and Marc Wasserman, ‘Canada’ in Ho, see footnote 75, 82.

  32. 32.

    11 USC § 1513 (2012).

  33. 33.

    Selinda A Melnik, ‘United States’ in Ho, see footnote 75, 486.

  34. 34.

    Mathews Vattamala, ‘The Myth of Cross-Border Cooperation: Mutual Assistance for the Collection of Tax Claims in Cross-Border Insolvencies (2012) 29 Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal <http://www.papers.ssm.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2128763>.

  35. 35.

    Wood, see footnote 12, 958 [31-033].

  36. 36.

    Golick and Wasserman, ‘Canada’ in Ho, see footnote 75, 83.

  37. 37.

    Ibid.

  38. 38.

    11 USC § 1514 (2012).

  39. 39.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Guide to Enactment of The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, UN Doc A/CN.9/442 (19 December 1997) as approved by GA Res A/RES/52/158 (1997) (30 January 1998) and amended by GA Res A/RES/68/107 (2013) (16 December 2013) [124].

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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). Comparative Analysis of the Enactment and Interpretation of the Chapter II of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency—Access of Foreign Representatives and Creditors to Courts in This State. In: Cross-Border Insolvency. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5876-9_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5876-9_7

  • 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