No description available.

This thesis offers a comparative study of Chinese and the U.S. legislations on the issue of cross-border insolvency. China has included one article concerning this issue in its Enterprise Bankruptcy Law promulgated in 2006. Four years after that, when facing a real case, it is found that the legislation is too preliminary to be used. In the meantime, great efforts have been made among many western countries in order to promote international cooperation on this issue. The United States is one of the most active countries. This thesis analyzes the Chinese version of cross-border insolvency legislation, factor by factor. It also does case study of mostly U.S. cases and some other countries’ cases and tries to find out how the courts interpret the corresponding factors. In doing so, it hopes to improve the Chinese legislation by taking international experience as reference.

This thesis offers a comparative study of Chinese and the U.S. legislations on the issue of cross-border insolvency. China has included one article concerning this issue in its Enterprise Bankruptcy Law promulgated in 2006. Four years after that, when facing a real case, it is found that the legislation is too preliminary to be used. In the meantime, great efforts have been made among many western countries in order to promote international cooperation on this issue. The United States is one of the most active countries. This thesis analyzes the Chinese version of cross-border insolvency legislation, factor by factor. It also does case study of mostly U.S. cases and some other countries’ cases and tries to find out how the courts interpret the corresponding factors. In doing so, it hopes to improve the Chinese legislation by taking international experience as reference.

Due to economic globalisation and integration, as well as the global economic downturn since 2008, the appearance of cross-border insolvencies have increased dramatically. This increase in cross-border insolvencies has led to a demand for a general and fair system to administer cross-border insolvencies globally. In 1997 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) promulgated the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency to act as an aide to countries in globally administering cross-border insolvencies in a uniform way. South Africa, and the United States of America (USA), subsequently accepted this Model Law approach into their respective national legislation. South Africa did this through the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 42 of 2000 (CBIA) and the USA by way of Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The CBIA is, however, not currently in operation as the Minister of Justice has not yet designated countries to which the CBIA will apply. Chapter 15 is, however, effective and operational in the USA. The two theories that underlie cross-border insolvencies – universalism and territorialism – have been further refined in the theories of modern universalism and modern territorialism. Supporters of modern universalism hailed the acceptance of the Model Law into the national legislation of countries as a victory over modern territorialism as the characteristics of modern universalism can be found throughout the Model Law. Modern universalism is, however, seen as theory which endangers the interests of local creditors as it favours universal administration of assets. However, modern territorialism is, on the other hand, acknowledged to protect the interests of local creditors. Therefore an investigation into the application of Chapter 15 by the courts of the USA will indicate if the interests of local creditors are sufficiently protected under this so-called modern universalistic approach and, if indeed so, how this is achieved. As the CBIA is neither operational nor effective in South Africa, cross-border insolvencies are governed by the common law and the precedents set down in case law. Writers and case law indicate that South Africa uses a system that can be described as between pure territorialism and modern territorialism. It can therefore be accepted that South Africa currently protects the interests of its local creditors sufficiently. The question then arises if, when South Africa made the CBIA effective and operational, would local creditors‟ interests still be sufficiently protected? As the CBIA and Chapter 15 are both based on the Model Law, they are basically identical in most aspects. Therefore an investigation into the application of Chapter 15 will also indicate if the CBIA will sufficiently protect the interests of local creditors. This dissertation thus attempts, through an investigation of the applications lodged under Chapter 15, to indicate that the USA still succeeds in protecting the interests of its local creditors. The USA achieves this through utilising mechanisms made available through Chapter 15 itself. Consequently this dissertation shows that South Africa can make the CBIA operational, while still sufficiently protecting the interests of its local creditors. / Thesis (LLM (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

Due to economic globalisation and integration, as well as the global economic downturn since 2008, the appearance of cross-border insolvencies have increased dramatically. This increase in cross-border insolvencies has led to a demand for a general and fair system to administer cross-border insolvencies globally. In 1997 United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) promulgated the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency to act as an aide to countries in globally administering cross-border insolvencies in a uniform way. South Africa, and the United States of America (USA), subsequently accepted this Model Law approach into their respective national legislation. South Africa did this through the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 42 of 2000 (CBIA) and the USA by way of Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. The CBIA is, however, not currently in operation as the Minister of Justice has not yet designated countries to which the CBIA will apply. Chapter 15 is, however, effective and operational in the USA. The two theories that underlie cross-border insolvencies – universalism and territorialism – have been further refined in the theories of modern universalism and modern territorialism. Supporters of modern universalism hailed the acceptance of the Model Law into the national legislation of countries as a victory over modern territorialism as the characteristics of modern universalism can be found throughout the Model Law. Modern universalism is, however, seen as theory which endangers the interests of local creditors as it favours universal administration of assets. However, modern territorialism is, on the other hand, acknowledged to protect the interests of local creditors. Therefore an investigation into the application of Chapter 15 by the courts of the USA will indicate if the interests of local creditors are sufficiently protected under this so-called modern universalistic approach and, if indeed so, how this is achieved. As the CBIA is neither operational nor effective in South Africa, cross-border insolvencies are governed by the common law and the precedents set down in case law. Writers and case law indicate that South Africa uses a system that can be described as between pure territorialism and modern territorialism. It can therefore be accepted that South Africa currently protects the interests of its local creditors sufficiently. The question then arises if, when South Africa made the CBIA effective and operational, would local creditors‟ interests still be sufficiently protected? As the CBIA and Chapter 15 are both based on the Model Law, they are basically identical in most aspects. Therefore an investigation into the application of Chapter 15 will also indicate if the CBIA will sufficiently protect the interests of local creditors. This dissertation thus attempts, through an investigation of the applications lodged under Chapter 15, to indicate that the USA still succeeds in protecting the interests of its local creditors. The USA achieves this through utilising mechanisms made available through Chapter 15 itself. Consequently this dissertation shows that South Africa can make the CBIA operational, while still sufficiently protecting the interests of its local creditors. / Thesis (LLM (Import and Export Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

La faillite internationale est une matière complexe qui a donné lieu à un long et vif débat doctrinal entre les tenants des systèmes de la territorialité et de l'universalité. Une faillite est internationale lorsqu'elle met en présence un débiteur possédant des biens ou des créanciers dans plus d'un pays. Puisque la matière de faillite est souvent très différente d'un pays à l'autre, l'application du système de la pluralité, retenue dans la plupart des pays, soulève plusieurs problèmes particulièrement en ce qui concerne la coordination entre les diverses faillites et le manque de protection des créanciers, notamment parce qu'elle accorde des effets limités à la reconnaissance des procédures de faillite étrangères. En effet, en présence de procédures de faillite concurrentes il s'agit de répondre aux questions suivantes: quelle est la juridiction compétente pour ouvrir et organiser la faillite? Quelle est la loi applicable? Dans quels États cette faillite va-t-elle produire des effets? Dans le présent mémoire, il s'agit d'établir une comparaison entre le système canadien et le système européen en matière de faillite internationale. Le législateur canadien a récemment envisagé de modifier sa législation sur la faillite pour permettre une meilleure coopération internationale en matière de faillite internationale. Le projet canadien C-55 reprend pour l'essentiel les dispositions contenues dans la loi-type de la commission des Nations-Unis pour le droit commercial international (CNUDCI) sur «l'insolvabilité internationale». Ainsi, il permet de faciliter réellement la reconnaissance des décisions de faillite étrangères, il accorde une plus grande portée aux effets de cette reconnaissance et il prévoit une coordination des procédures multiples en établissant une «hiérarchisation» des procédures de faillite relativement semblable au système européen. Cependant, le projet canadien atteint moins bien l'objectif d'universalité que le Règlement européen 1346/2000 au niveau du traitement égalitaire entre les créanciers locaux et les créanciers étrangers. Si la loi-type offre à tous les États une utilité pratique considérable pour les nombreux cas de coopération internationale, l'harmonisation de la faillite internationale dépendra de son adoption dans les différentes législations. Bien que plusieurs pays aient inséré ce modèle dans leur législation sur la faillite, il n'est pas encore possible, à l'heure actuelle, de parler d'un droit international de la faillite. / International insolvency is a complex subject that has given rise to a long and sharp doctrinal debate between supporters of systems of territorialism and of universality. An insolvency is international where a debtor possesses goods or creditors in more than one country. Since the matter of bankruptcy is often very different from one country to another, the application of the system of plurality, which is retained in the majority of countries, raises several problems, particularly with regard to the coordination between several bankruptcies and the lack of protection of creditors, largely because plurality grants effects that are limited to the recognition of the foreign bankruptcy procedures. Indeed, in the presence of concurrent procedures of bankruptcy, the following questions must be addressed: Which is the court having jurisdiction to open and organize the bankruptcy? Which law is applicable? In which States will this bankruptcy produce effects? This thesis will establish a comparison between the Canadian system and the European system with respect to international bankruptcy. The Canadian legislator recently planned to modify its legislation on bankruptcy in order to better foster international co-operation in the realm of international bankruptcy. The Canadian Bill C-55 largely reiterates the provisions contained in the Model Law on cross border insolvency (UNCITRAL). Bill C-55 thus facilitates the recognition of foreign decisions of bankruptcy, it grants a greater scope to the effects of this recognition and it aims to coordinate multiple bankruptcy procedures by establishing a "hierarchisation" there of that is relatively similar to the European system. However, the Canadian project does not achieve the goal of universality as well as does the European regulation 1346/2000 with respect to equal treatment between local creditors and foreign creditors. If the Model Law offers all States the considerable practical utility for many incidences of international co-operation, the harmonization of international bankruptcy will depend on the adoption of the Model Law in various domestic legislations. Although several countries have inserted this model in their legislation on bankruptcy, it is not yet possible, at the present time, to speak of an international law of bankruptcy.

La faillite internationale est une matière complexe qui a donné lieu à un long et vif débat doctrinal entre les tenants des systèmes de la territorialité et de l'universalité. Une faillite est internationale lorsqu'elle met en présence un débiteur possédant des biens ou des créanciers dans plus d'un pays. Puisque la matière de faillite est souvent très différente d'un pays à l'autre, l'application du système de la pluralité, retenue dans la plupart des pays, soulève plusieurs problèmes particulièrement en ce qui concerne la coordination entre les diverses faillites et le manque de protection des créanciers, notamment parce qu'elle accorde des effets limités à la reconnaissance des procédures de faillite étrangères. En effet, en présence de procédures de faillite concurrentes il s'agit de répondre aux questions suivantes: quelle est la juridiction compétente pour ouvrir et organiser la faillite? Quelle est la loi applicable? Dans quels États cette faillite va-t-elle produire des effets? Dans le présent mémoire, il s'agit d'établir une comparaison entre le système canadien et le système européen en matière de faillite internationale. Le législateur canadien a récemment envisagé de modifier sa législation sur la faillite pour permettre une meilleure coopération internationale en matière de faillite internationale. Le projet canadien C-55 reprend pour l'essentiel les dispositions contenues dans la loi-type de la commission des Nations-Unis pour le droit commercial international (CNUDCI) sur «l'insolvabilité internationale». Ainsi, il permet de faciliter réellement la reconnaissance des décisions de faillite étrangères, il accorde une plus grande portée aux effets de cette reconnaissance et il prévoit une coordination des procédures multiples en établissant une «hiérarchisation» des procédures de faillite relativement semblable au système européen. Cependant, le projet canadien atteint moins bien l'objectif d'universalité que le Règlement européen 1346/2000 au niveau du traitement égalitaire entre les créanciers locaux et les créanciers étrangers. Si la loi-type offre à tous les États une utilité pratique considérable pour les nombreux cas de coopération internationale, l'harmonisation de la faillite internationale dépendra de son adoption dans les différentes législations. Bien que plusieurs pays aient inséré ce modèle dans leur législation sur la faillite, il n'est pas encore possible, à l'heure actuelle, de parler d'un droit international de la faillite. / International insolvency is a complex subject that has given rise to a long and sharp doctrinal debate between supporters of systems of territorialism and of universality. An insolvency is international where a debtor possesses goods or creditors in more than one country. Since the matter of bankruptcy is often very different from one country to another, the application of the system of plurality, which is retained in the majority of countries, raises several problems, particularly with regard to the coordination between several bankruptcies and the lack of protection of creditors, largely because plurality grants effects that are limited to the recognition of the foreign bankruptcy procedures. Indeed, in the presence of concurrent procedures of bankruptcy, the following questions must be addressed: Which is the court having jurisdiction to open and organize the bankruptcy? Which law is applicable? In which States will this bankruptcy produce effects? This thesis will establish a comparison between the Canadian system and the European system with respect to international bankruptcy. The Canadian legislator recently planned to modify its legislation on bankruptcy in order to better foster international co-operation in the realm of international bankruptcy. The Canadian Bill C-55 largely reiterates the provisions contained in the Model Law on cross border insolvency (UNCITRAL). Bill C-55 thus facilitates the recognition of foreign decisions of bankruptcy, it grants a greater scope to the effects of this recognition and it aims to coordinate multiple bankruptcy procedures by establishing a "hierarchisation" there of that is relatively similar to the European system. However, the Canadian project does not achieve the goal of universality as well as does the European regulation 1346/2000 with respect to equal treatment between local creditors and foreign creditors. If the Model Law offers all States the considerable practical utility for many incidences of international co-operation, the harmonization of international bankruptcy will depend on the adoption of the Model Law in various domestic legislations. Although several countries have inserted this model in their legislation on bankruptcy, it is not yet possible, at the present time, to speak of an international law of bankruptcy.

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.

Liest und verfolgt man die diversen in der jüngeren Vergangenheit ergangenen Pres­severlautbarungen und Stellungnahmen zum Thema Überschuldung im Allgemeinen und dem insolvenzrechtlichen Überschuldungsbegriff im Besonderen, drängt sich einem der Verdacht auf, dass ein wie auch immer geartetes Problembewusstsein zu diesem Thema gewollt in die Bedeutungslosigkeit geschrieben worden ist. Nach überwiegend herrschender Meinung seien die insolvenzrechtliche Überschuldung und der damit einhergehende Insolvenzantragsgrund mittlerweile obsolet. Dieser Meinungsstand verwundert doch stark angesichts der nach wie vor hohen Anzahl an Unternehmensinsolvenzen, insbesondere im Bereich mittelständischer Unternehmen. Obgleich bei einem Gutteil der betroffenen Unternehmen als Insolvenzantragsgrund die Zahlungsunfähigkeit angegeben worden ist, darf dies nicht darüber hinweg täuschen, dass einer Illiquidität in aller Regel eine Überschuldung vorausgeht. Dabei spielt es objektiv betrachtet keine Rolle, ob es sich um eine bilanzielle, rechnerische oder insolvenzrechtliche Überschuldung handelt; in allen Fällen vermag das Vermögen die Schulden nicht mehr zu decken, m.a.W.: die Schuldendeckungsfähigkeit ist nicht mehr gegeben. Die Erhaltung der Schuldendeckungsfähigkeit eines Unternehmens ist so gesehen der erste Schritt zur Insolvenzprophylaxe. Allerdings sind die normierten handelsrechtlichen Rechnungslegungsvorschriften aus vielerlei Gründen nur bedingt geeignet, die Schuldendeckungsfähigkeit eines Unternehmens verlässlich zu überprüfen. Insoweit erscheint es folgerichtig, gerade für die mittelständische GmbH eine Ergänzung der aktuellen Rechnungslegung durch eine permanente Schuldendeckungskontrolle, wie sie bereits durch die ältere Zerschlagungsstatik bzw. statische Interpretation der Bilanz gefordert wurde, vorzusehen und damit den organschaftlichen Vertreter der mittelständischen GmbH in die Lage zu versetzen, im Rahmen seiner Selbstinformationsverpflichtung den Bestand des Unternehmens zu sichern und die externen Gläubiger angemessen zu schützen. Die präventive Anwendung der insolvenzrechtlichen Überschuldungsprüfung nach § 19 InsO zur Schuldendeckungskontrolle ermöglicht dem organschaftlichen Vertreter zweierlei: In Abhängigkeit von der Frühzeitigkeit der Vornahme einer solchen Prüfungshandlung kann deren Informationsgehalt entweder insolvenzprophylaktisch im Sinne einer erfolgreichen außergerichtlichen Sanierung wirken oder aber zumindest den Weg zu einer rechtzeitigen und geordneten Insolvenzantragstellung weisen. Das Ergebnis der Überschuldungsprüfung kann so dazu beitragen, erste Indikatoren bestehender Fehlentwicklungen und Schieflagen bereits im Vorfeld einer sich abzeichnenden Krise aufzuzeigen. Anzeichen dieser Art sind in aller Regel schon lange vor Eintritt der Insolvenzantragspflicht im Zahlenwerk der betreffenden Unternehmen erkennbar.