No description available.

La faillite internationale est la faillite présentant des éléments d'extranéité. Avec l'expansion du commerce international et la succession d'instabilités économiques, l'importance du sujet a été considérablement accrue. 11eme puissance mondiale avec une économie reposant largement sur le commerce, la Corée (République de Corée), non moins concernée par cette tendance, a modernisé sa législation il y a une décennie. Le volume des échanges commerciaux entre la France et la Corée ayant doublé en 10 ans avec aujourd'hui près de 200 entreprises françaises présentes sur le territoire coréen, les règles nouvelles du droit coréen régissant les faillites transfrontalières ne sont plus indifférentes pour le juriste français. Le droit international privé coréen des faillites, sans paraître à première vue fondamentalement différent des droits français ou européen, comporte plusieurs particularités et fait par ailleurs l'impasse sur des notions phares de l'universalisme modifié auquel il prétend avoir adhéré. La substance, les motivations, et les possibles suites de cet état actuel du droit sont traitées dans la présente étude, avec un regard sur le droit des faillites, le droit de la procédure civile et le droit international privé coréens ainsi qu'une comparaison de ces derniers avec les droits français et européen. / Cross-border insolvency denotes the situations arising out of insolvency involving extraneous aspects. Along with the expansion of international trade and the succession of economic instabilities, the importance of its study has undoubtedly become greater. As one of the most concerned actors by this phenomenon, Korea (Republic of Korea) has modernized its legislation a decade ago. The volume of trade between France and Korea having doubled in 10 years, with nownear 200 French companies established in Korea, the new rules of Korean law governing crossborder insolvencies are no longer irrelevant to French jurists. Korean cross-border insolvency law, while not appearing prima facie to be fundamentally different from French or European laws, has several peculiarities and obfuscates the core principles of modified universalism to which it claims to adhere. The substance, the motivations and the possible results of this state of law will constitute the topic of this thesis, with an overview of Korea's bankruptcy law, civil procedural law and private international law, along with their comparison to French and European laws.

A l’heure de la mondialisation et de la croissance permanente des échanges entre les Etats, la question de la faillite internationale est devenue une problématique de choix, au coeur d’un système aux multiples défaillances. Le jeu du marché ne s’opère plus au regard d’un territoire et d’un Etat, mais véritablement au regard d’un espace économique qui dépasse largement les frontières de la France. Le règlement communautaire 1346/2000 relatif aux procédures d'insolvabilité, entré en vigueur le 31 mai 2002, est un premier aboutissement en la matière au niveau de l’Union européenne. Il appréhende l’insolvabilité transfrontière en réussissant à articuler procédure universelle et procédure territoriale et en liant la compétence juridictionnelle au droit substantiel applicable. La lex fori concursus , à portée universelle, est désignée par le seul critère de compétence applicable pour l'ouverture de la procédure principale d'insolvabilité : le centre des intérêts principaux du débiteur. Notion autonome et incontestablement centrale, elle ne bénéficie pas d'une définition établie. Présumée coïncider avec le siège statutaire pour le débiteur personne morale, l'acception de la notion de centre des intérêts principaux s'est faite de manière prétorienne au fil des années. A l’heure de la révision du Règlement, sa définition n'est toujours pas inscrite à l'article 2 du règlement 1346/2000. Néanmoins, cela s'avère être un avantage lorsque l'on se positionne dans une logique de dimension internationale, dans laquelle le concept de centre des intérêts principaux tend également à s'inscrire. / In the era of globalisation and permanent growth of trade between States, the matter of cross-border insolvency has become an issue of choices at the heart of a system that shows multiple failures. The market rules are no longer governed by a territory or a State, but truly by an economic area that extends far beyond the borders of France. The EC regulation 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings that came into effect on the 31st of May, 2002 is the first achievement on this matter for the European Union. It apprehends cross-border insolvency while successfully articulating both the universal and territorial proceedings as well as binding jurisdiction with the applicable substantive law. The lex fori concursus with its universal scope is designated by the sole criterion of applicable jurisdiction for initiating the main procedure of insolvency: the debtor's centre of main interests. As an autonomous and undeniably central concept, it has no settled definition. The understanding of the centre of main interests concept which supposedly coincides with the registered office for the legal person debtor, has been put in the hands of Court over the years. Such definition is still not covered in Article 2 of the 1346/2000 regulation. However, this turns out to be an advantage on an international dimension when the concept of centre of main interests tends also to be considered on a world-wide basis.

This diploma thesis deals with the topic of international insolvency law, in particular with certain areas of European insolvency law, with an emphasis on the matters of international jurisdiction for opening of main and territorial insolvency proceedings and international jurisdiction to hear actions related to insolvency proceedings. Furthermore, this diploma thesis is aimed at evaluation of the Czech legislation regarding cross-border insolvencies. The legal framework for European insolvency law was incorporated into the Insolvency regulation in 2002. Due to disagreements between certain member states of the EU regarding some of the important institutes of cross-border insolvencies the Insolvency regulation often contains vague provisions. It, therefore, fell to the Court of Justice of the European Union to provide interpretation of such ambiguous clauses. In 2012 the European commission created a report on the application of the Insolvency regulation and simultaneously presented a long awaited proposal for modernisation of the European insolvency law in the form of the Insolvency regulation recast. The aim of the Insolvency regulation recast is to promote cooperation between member states in the matter of cross-border insolvency proceedings. Additionally, it codifies a substantial part of the...

An increase in economic globalisation and international trade the past two decades has amounted to an increase in the number of multinational enterprises that conduct business, own assets and have debt in various jurisdictions around the world. This, coupled with the recent worldwide economic recession, has inevitably caused the increased occurrence of multinational financial default, also known as cross–border insolvency (CBI). CBI refers to the situation where insolvency proceedings are initiated in one jurisdiction with regard to a debtor’s estate and the debtor also has property, debt or both in at least one other jurisdiction. When a multinational enterprise is in financial distress, the structure of such an enterprise poses significant challenges to the question of how to address its insolvency. This is due to the fact that, although the multinational enterprise is found globally in different jurisdictions around the world, the laws addressing its liquidation are local. The possibility of restructuring the multinational enterprise or liquidating it in order the satisfy creditor claims optimally depends greatly upon the ease with which the insolvency law regimes of multiple jurisdictions can facilitate a fair and timely resolution to the financial distress of that multinational enterprise. The legal response to this problem has produced two important international instruments which were designed to address key issues associated with CBI. Firstly, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency in 1997, which has been adopted by nineteen countries including the United States of America (in the form of Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code) and South Africa (in the form of the Cross–Border Insolvency Act 42 of 2000). Secondly, the European Union adopted the European Council Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EC Regulation) in 2000. These two instruments address the management of general default by a debtor and are aimed at providing a legal framework which seeks to enhance legal certainty, cooperation, coordination and harmonization between states in CBI matters throughout the world. After discussing the viewpoints of various writers, it seems clear that “modified universalism” is the correct approach towards CBI matters globally. This is mainly due to the fact that the main international instruments currently dealing with CBI matters are all based upon “modified universalism”. By looking at various EU and US case law it is also evident that, although there is currently still no established test for the determination of the “centre of main interest” (COMI) of a debtor–company under Chapter 15, there is a difference in the approach adopted by courts in the EU and those in the US in this regard. This dissertation further discusses the requirements for a debtor–company to possess an “establishment” for the purpose of opening foreign non–main insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction as well as the choice–of–law considerations in CBI matters. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

An increase in economic globalisation and international trade the past two decades has amounted to an increase in the number of multinational enterprises that conduct business, own assets and have debt in various jurisdictions around the world. This, coupled with the recent worldwide economic recession, has inevitably caused the increased occurrence of multinational financial default, also known as cross–border insolvency (CBI). CBI refers to the situation where insolvency proceedings are initiated in one jurisdiction with regard to a debtor’s estate and the debtor also has property, debt or both in at least one other jurisdiction. When a multinational enterprise is in financial distress, the structure of such an enterprise poses significant challenges to the question of how to address its insolvency. This is due to the fact that, although the multinational enterprise is found globally in different jurisdictions around the world, the laws addressing its liquidation are local. The possibility of restructuring the multinational enterprise or liquidating it in order the satisfy creditor claims optimally depends greatly upon the ease with which the insolvency law regimes of multiple jurisdictions can facilitate a fair and timely resolution to the financial distress of that multinational enterprise. The legal response to this problem has produced two important international instruments which were designed to address key issues associated with CBI. Firstly, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross–Border Insolvency in 1997, which has been adopted by nineteen countries including the United States of America (in the form of Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code) and South Africa (in the form of the Cross–Border Insolvency Act 42 of 2000). Secondly, the European Union adopted the European Council Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EC Regulation) in 2000. These two instruments address the management of general default by a debtor and are aimed at providing a legal framework which seeks to enhance legal certainty, cooperation, coordination and harmonization between states in CBI matters throughout the world. After discussing the viewpoints of various writers, it seems clear that “modified universalism” is the correct approach towards CBI matters globally. This is mainly due to the fact that the main international instruments currently dealing with CBI matters are all based upon “modified universalism”. By looking at various EU and US case law it is also evident that, although there is currently still no established test for the determination of the “centre of main interest” (COMI) of a debtor–company under Chapter 15, there is a difference in the approach adopted by courts in the EU and those in the US in this regard. This dissertation further discusses the requirements for a debtor–company to possess an “establishment” for the purpose of opening foreign non–main insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction as well as the choice–of–law considerations in CBI matters. / Thesis (LL.M. (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2011.

The aim of this PhD thesis is to analyse the current status of European insolvency law and with the help of both national and European judicial decisions put together an overview of practical obstacles that insolvency courts, debtors, creditors and insolvency trustees across Europe are facing when dealing with cross-border insolvencies. At the very core of this topic stands the European Insolvency Regulation ("EIR") which was adopted in 2015 and is effective within the member states as of June 2017. Since this regulation was put together as a recast of its predecessor, i.e. the original insolvency regulation adopted in 2000 and effective as of 2002, naturally this research is oriented at comparing the two legislative acts and mainly assessing whether or not the recast EIR managed to overcome some of the inconsistencies in the wording of the original EIR, often resulting in conflicting interpretations and a great deal of preliminary rulings filed with the Court of Justice of the EU. Apart from looking into good old instruments of private international law such as the scope, the jurisdiction, the choice of law and the recognition and enforcement rules governed by the EIR, this thesis also focuses on topics that are very bankruptcy-specific and dissimilar to anything we know from other fields of law....

在金融市場國際化之趨勢下，各國金融交易參與者極可能受到跨國破產事件的影響。同時，受到金融創新潮流的驅使，非傳統金融工具的商業活動亦構成金融市場重要環節之一，從而探討破產法制對於非傳統金融交易契約之處理方式，實有其重要性。本文以店頭衍生性金融交易市場以及所選取案例為中心，探討跨國破產事件相關議題，包括破產法制對於店頭衍生性金融交易所給予的特殊規定（或在破產法制下承認提前終止與淨額結算條款之效力，以下均統稱為「破產法特殊規定」），以及相關跨國破產事件之可能處理模式或合作途徑。 本文以國內外學術文獻、法院見解之整理為基礎，進行法學分析，並輔以金融實務觀點進行研究，於各相關部分同時探討我國法制。本文分為七章，內容簡介如後。 首先，於第一章說明研究動機、目的、研究方法與架構，同時也限定研究範圍。又因跨國破產事件具多樣性與複雜性，為使本文討論範圍明確與聚焦，故於第二章先行提出具體跨國破產事件之美國與英國案例及其爭議問題，並以其做為本文探討中心與範圍，探討內容即包含破產法制涉及店頭衍生性金融交易之規範實體面議題，以及跨國破產事件處理方式之程序面議題。後續章節將陸續探討上開問題。 第三章簡介店頭衍生性金融交易，以及說明其常見契約結構、相關法律問題。本章同時介紹「單一主契約模式」與「提前終止與淨額結算條款」之概念，學者及實務工作者有謂上開契約條款之功能，包含避免於破產程序中破產管理人選擇性履行或拒絕契約、降低交易對手信用風險、提升未違約方之再避險可能性、減少銀行業之資本計提成本、降低系統性風險等，而其中最具爭議性的降低系統性風險功能，也是目前全球多國破產法制承認提前終止與淨額結算條款具有效性的重要理由之一。本章著重於顯示店頭衍生性金融交易之當事人約定事項與破產法制間之關聯性，此屬於破產法制之規範實體面議題，以便於次一章接續介紹外國破產法制之相關具體內容。本章內容與後續各章均有密切關聯，故有說明之必要。 第四章先說明破產法制之一般原則，再分別於美國、英國、歐盟、日本、以及我國法制下，觀察破產法制對於店頭衍生性金融交易之例外規定（或在破產法制下承認提前終止與淨額結算條款之效力），著重於說明破產法制立法或承認「提前終止與淨額結算條款」效力之現況，並參考外國文獻探討其立法理由是否具有充足正當性，以及其規定是否有修訂或調整之必要。相對於第三章彙整學說及實務觀點以說明「提前終止與淨額結算條款」之功能，本章則援引外國文獻對破產法制立法或承認「提前終止與淨額結算條款」效力之批評，並做出該條款效力於破產法制中至少應調整為受有一定限制之結論，也就是訂有交易提前終止權之暫時凍結期間、於具系統重要性金融機構清理程序中適用股東與債權人共同承擔損失機制、交易雙方善意無偏頗等，以及在我國法制下亦宜採取同等看法。本章最後分析本文第二章案例在破產法制下之實體面問題，同時也藉此試行探討「提前終止與淨額結算條款」在破產法制下的效力範圍以及第二章案例合成型債務抵押債券交易中有關「序位轉換條款」之效力爭議。本文認為美國破產法院、英國法院係分別各自依其破產法制與公共政策對「序位轉換條款」做出效力判斷，各具實體理由；以及「序位轉換條款」在我國法制下應屬有效。 第五章在本論文題旨範圍內，先說明2007年-2009年金融危機後，二十國集團（G20）所提出的國際性指導建議，之後擇要介紹美國與歐盟依循上開建議，對於店頭衍生性金融交易市場所採行的金融改革法規，包含（但不限於）交易執行平台、集中清算、交易資料之申報、對未集中清算交易加強徵提擔保品等管理措施；此外，在跨國交易監理層面上，簡要介紹替代遵循之概念。本章並說明以上規範與跨國破產事件之關係。本章在整體研究架構上的功能有二，一方面是做為第四章破產法規範實體面議題與第六章跨國破產法制程序面議題之連結，也就是觀察美國及歐盟金融改革法令對第四章所述破產法特殊規定之影響，以及金融改革法案所對應第六章目前國際金融市場之實務發展趨勢以及特殊清理架構下之相關規定。另一方面，相對於第六章係探討發生跨國破產事件時之程序處理模式，第五章則是從破產事件發生前之前階段觀察，藉由事前建構市場監理措施及規劃，以期促進跨國破產事件發生時之處理效能。 第六章探討跨國破產事件處理方式之程序面議題。先敘明跨國破產立法所採行的基礎原則理論，包含普及原則、屬地原則、修正式普及原則、現代化屬地原則；同時簡要介紹相關跨國破產法制。繼而說明金融穩定理事會 （FSB）相關建議，以及觀察近期國際金融實務發展。之後，綜結第四章至第六章之內容，按跨國破產事件之實體面議題與程序面議題，對於涉及店頭衍生性金融交易之跨國破產事件，說明本文在相關立法論或處理合作模式層面上所採取之立場。最末，分析本文第二章案例之程序處理問題。 最後，第七章就本論文探討範圍以及第二章所提出之問題，進行總結論，並試行對我國金融市場參與者提出相關建議。 / Abstract Due to globalization of financial markets, it is hard for market participants to avoid the impact arises from cross-border insolvency events. With the trend of financial innovation, non-traditional financial instruments become an important role in financial markets, and it’s necessary to understand the treatment of these instruments under insolvency law systems. This thesis discusses specific legal issues with regard to cross-border insolvency events in over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives financial markets with focus on the relevant cases selected, including the special treatment of OTC derivatives under insolvency law systems and the potential procedures or coordinate ways to deal with the cases. Based on and reference to research of academic papers and court decisions, this thesis discusses issues through legal analysis supplemented with views of financial practice. The relevant parts are also discussed under Taiwan’s law system. This thesis proceeds in 7 chapters briefly described as follows. Chapter 1 explains the objective, purpose, and fundamental structure together with the method used of this thesis. Assumptions and Confines of this thesis are also described in this chapter. Given diversity and complexity of cross-border insolvency events, Chapter 2 attempts to present actual cases for discussion in order to providing the scope and focuses of this thesis. Key finding of the presented cases includes substantive legal issues of insolvency laws applied to OTC derivatives transactions and procedural legal issues of dealing with cross-border insolvency events. Matters aforementioned will be addressed in further chapters. Chapter 3 describes the basic understanding of OTC derivatives and the legal elements of participants’ transaction contracts in market practice. This chapter also describes the concepts of “the single agreement approach” and “close-out netting provisions”. As academic opinions and practical views mentioned, close-out netting provisions encompass the functions of eliminating the risk of “cherry-picking” by a liquidator in the insolvency proceeding, minimizing counterparty credit risk by calculating exposures on a net basis, promoting the possibility of re-hedging transactions, applying lower capital requirements by regulators to refer to netted transactions for bank industry, and reducing systemic risk in the financial system. Insolvency law systems which allow the effectiveness of close-out netting provisions heavily rationalize the legislation as being founded on preventing the threat of systemic risk. While some academic papers argue that the rationalization on the basis of reducing systemic risk is unconvincing or unnecessary for reasons. Chapter 3 primarily concerns the connections between OTC derivatives contracts and insolvency law systems, in the dimension of substantive legal issues. What addressed in this chapter is highly connected with the subsequent chapters. Chapter 4 describes the general principles of insolvency laws at first, and then observes the exclusions of OTC derivatives transactions under insolvency law systems of U.S., UK, EU, Japan and Taiwan respectively, focusing on issues respecting of validity and enforceability of close-out netting provisions. Compared with Chapter 3 which describes the functions of close-out netting stated by advocators, this chapter illustrates challenges or arguments posed by academic papers with different views. Reference to the relevant academic opinions, this thesis considers that the effectiveness of close-out netting provisions shall, at least, be subject to restrictions to a reasonable extent, such as temporary stays on early termination rights as well as on enforcement rights of security interests, application of the bail-in tool in SIFIs’ resolution procedures, and each party’s good faith. The aforesaid views are also proposed to be referenced by Taiwan’s law regime in the future. In the end of this chapter, it analyzes the cases presented in Chapter 2 within the scope of substantive issues of insolvency laws, and concludes that both U.S. bankruptcy court’s ruling and UK courts’ decisions on the flip clause embedded in CDO instruments are correct respectively pursuant to their own insolvency laws and public policies. In addition, this thesis is in the opinion that the flip clause shall be effective under Taiwan’s current insolvency law system. Chapter 5 will first describe the international guidelines suggested by G20 after 2007-2009 financial crisis. It will then go on to introduce the financial regulatory reforms adopted by U.S. and EU following G20’s guidelines, including the mandatory requirements for trading on the regulated platforms, clearing through a central counterparty (CCP), reporting to a trade repository (TR), and exchanging margins for non-centrally cleared OTC derivative transactions. Besides, the concept of substituted compliance is briefly explained herein for implementing the regulatory regimes to cross-border activities. Chapter 5 also observes the connections between the aforesaid regulatory reforms and cross-border insolvency events. Under the structure of this thesis, substantive legal issues in Chapter 4 and procedural legal issues in Chapter 6 are bridged by Chapter 5. While Chapter 6 emphasizes on ex post measures to handle cross-border insolvency events, this Chapter 5 considers ex ante measures that monitor and supervise OTC derivatives markets and that also have been expected to promote ex post measures in case. Chapter 6 addresses the procedural aspects while dealing with cross-border insolvency cases. First, the theoretical principles for cross-border insolvency law are explained, including universality, territoriality, modified universality and modern territoriality. It herein also introduces legislative regimes in relation to UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency and some jurisdictions’ international insolvency laws. Second, it turns to suggestions made by FSB. Third, the recent international trend in market practice is observed. Then, section 4 of this Chapter proposes framework of regulatory aspects and cooperation arrangements to process cross-border insolvency events, comprehensively in the substantive and the procedural dimensions. Lastly, it analyzes the cases presented in Chapter 2 within the scope of procedural issues of insolvency laws. Chapter 7 summaries conclusions on this thesis and on issues raised in Chapter 2. This final Chapter also tries to provide suggestions to our financial market participants in Taiwan.

The PhD thesis "Current Issues in International Insolvency Law" aims to describe and draw attention to the moments that, in the opinion of its author, have had the strongest impact on international insolvency law so far. As such it is chiefly devoted to the analysis of existing regulation in the area of European insolvency law (which is principally based on Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings - the "Old Insolvency Regulation" - and Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings - the "New Insolvency Regulation"), and also provides a selection of the relevant case law which has over time significantly changed the way in which specific issues and instruments related to this area are viewed. To do justice to the complexity of the subject matter, the thesis also discusses the determination of jurisdiction in cross-border insolvency proceedings and recognition of the effects of foreign insolvency proceedings in relations between EU and non-EU countries. The main aim of the thesis is to answer the following questions: which legal documents have had the strongest impact on the current form of international insolvency law; whether and how the interpretation of the concept of centre of a debtor's main...