Magistro baigiamojo darbo tikslas – remiantis Europos Sąjungos bei valstybių narių teisės aktais, teismų formuojama praktika ir doktrina, išanalizuoti ir įvertinti Bankroto reglamento bei valstybių narių nacionalinėje teisėje taikomas nuostatas, užtikrinančias kreditorių lygiateisiškumą bei atskleisti šio klausimo probleminius aspektus, pateikti probleminių klausimų teisinį vertinimą, taip pat teorinius ir praktinius sprendimo būdus. Pirmojoje darbo dalyje analizuojamos temai aktualios sąvokos ir jų sampratos. Visų pirma, analizuojama „bankroto“ sąvoka, įtvirtinta Tarybos reglamente Nr. 1346/2000 „Dėl bankroto bylų“ bei valstybių narių vidaus teisės sistemose. Autorė pastebi, kad Bankroto reglamente šiuo metu įtvirtintas bankroto bylų apibrėžimas yra pasenęs bei turi neigiamos įtakos kreditorių lygiateisiškumo užtikrinimui. Taip pat, šioje dalyje analizuojamos ir pateikiamos „kreditoriaus“ ir „kreditorių lygiateisiškumo arba principo parri passu (par conditio creditorum)“ sampratos. Antrojoje magistro baigiamojo darbo dalyje analizuojamas kreditorių lygiateisiškumo užtikrinimas Europos Sąjungos mąstu bei valstybių narių vidaus teisėje, aptariamos reglamentavimo spragos ir tendencijos. Dėmesys skiriamas kreditorių lygiateisiškumo principo užtikrinimui nuo bankroto bylos iškėlimo, t. y. nuo kreditorių reikalavimų pateikimo, jų tikrinimo ir tvirtinimo iki eiliškumo nustatymo, kadangi, šie pirminiai etapai turi lemiamos reikšmės tolimesniam bankroto procedūros vykdymui bei... [toliau žr. visą tekstą] / The objective of this graduating thesis for a master degree was to analyze and evaluate the provisions of the Insolvency Regulation and national laws of member states assuring the equality of creditors and to disclose the problematic aspects of this issue, to present the legal evaluation of topical issues as well as the theoretical and practical methods of a solution based on the legal acts of the European Union and member states, the practice and doctrine formed by courts. In the first part of this thesis, definitions and concepts relevant to the theme concerned were studied. First of all, the “insolvency” definition enacted by Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings and the national law systems of member states was analyzed. The author noted that the definition of insolvency lawsuits. which for the time being is enacted in the Insolvency Regulation, is out-of-date and negatively impacts the assurance of equality of creditors. In addition to this, in this part, the definitions of „the creditor“ and „the equality of creditors or the parri passu (par conditio creditorum) principle“ were presented and analyzed. In the second part of the graduation thesis for a master degree, the assurance of equality of creditors on the scales of the European Union and the national law of member states was analyzed, the gaps and tendencies of regulation were considered. Attention was paid to the assurance of the principle of equality of creditors from the moment of... [to full text]

Where parties are married in community of property, debts are incurred by the parties and not by the joint estate. Each spouse is liable for debt incurred by either spouse. A creditor is, therefore, entitled to claim from joint estate of both spouses (as co debtors). Such an estate includes not only the spouse's undivided interest in the joint estate but also any and all separate property that falls outside the joint estate. Once the joint estate is sequestrated, both spouses become "insolvent debtors" and consequently the property (including separate property) of both spouses is available to creditors. The lnsolvency Act, as opposed to the Matrimonial Property Act, makes no provision for the recognition or sequestration of 'separate property". Although an estate is sequestrated, it is the debtor who is insolvent. A debtor (married in community of property) who possesses "separate property" is on sequestration of the joint estate insolvent in relation to both his or her undivided interest in the joint estate as well as any "separate property". But is this correct? Ample provision is made by various statutes for the exclusion of certain property from an insolvent estate. Does this not mean that a debtor might be insolvent in relation to one estate and not insolvent in relation to the other? The estate of a partnership is, for purposes of sequestration, deemed to be a separate entity from the partners' private estates. Where the partnership fails, creditors first have recourse against the estate of the partnership where after any shortfall may be claimed from the private estates of the partners. Although the estates of partners are sequestrated simultaneously with the estate of the partnership, creditors of the partnership may not proof their claims against the estate of a partner and vice versa. Is it just and equitable that a spouse who owns separate property is treated differently from a partner who does not possess a separate estate in law from the partnership estate? A partner only has one estate - a private estate that includes his or her interest in the partnership. It is concluded that despite the judgment of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Du Plessis v Pienaar, a sense of dissatisfaction still prevails regarding the status of separate property. It is furthermore suggested that in view of the lack of provisions in the insolvency Act regarding separately owned property, the said Act be amended to provide for the specific exclusion of separate property from an insolvent joint estate. It is more advisable to provide for the exclusion of separate property from the insolvent joint estate than to provide for the simultaneous sequestration thereof. / Thesis (LL.M. (Estate Law))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2004.

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.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2006--Heidelberg.

Malgré la fréquence des périodes de crises financières, les États ne bénéficient pas d’un mécanisme d’insolvabilité. Prenant acte de cette absence de régulation institutionnelle, notre recherche poursuit un double objectif : identifier les outils existants pour traiter l’insolvabilité de l’État et évaluer leur efficacité. L’insolvabilité de l’État présente plusieurs spécificités. La première découle de l’absence de régulation en la matière : à défaut de mécanisme d’insolvabilité applicable, c’est le juge qui est susceptible d’être saisi. La seconde relève de la personne du débiteur. La qualité souveraine de la partie débitrice influe sur les modalités de concrétisation de l’insolvabilité. Dans une telle situation, l’État est tenté d’intervenir unilatéralement sur sa dette, soit pour annuler les contrats de prêt, soit pour les suspendre ou les modifier. Enfin, la troisième spécificité réside dans la personne des créanciers. Ceux-ci ne forment pas un tout uniforme. Ils sont issus d’ordres juridiques divers et poursuivent des objectifs variés. Pour répondre à chacune de ces difficultés, le droit international privé constitue un outil privilégié, du moins à l’égard des créanciers privés. Face aux difficultés soulevées par l’insolvabilité de l’État, le résultat est cependant contrasté. Lors de la question de l’accès au juge, le droit international privé se révèle décevant. Il n’est pas apte à satisfaire un traitement unitaire de l’insolvabilité. En revanche, les mécanismes substantiels de droit international privé apportent des progrès significatifs. S’ils sont adaptés, ils sont susceptibles d’assurer une certaine régulation de l’insolvabilité étatique. / Despite the large number of sovereign debt crises around the world over the centuries, international law on the matte is still very much underdeveloped. There exists no bankruptcy regime applicable to sovereign states. With this lack of institutional regulation in mind, our research aims at identifying a set of tools that can be used in order to provide a satisfactory treatment of state insolvency. State insolvency has specific characteristics. Firstly, due to the lack of regulation, the judge is the only authority that can be seized in case of insolvency. Secondly, being a sovereign powers in order to repudiate or modify sovereign debt. It can also declare a moratorium. Thirdly, the insolvency involves various creditors who each have different goals. They come from different legal orders. Private international law is a primary tool to tackle these issues, at least when creditors are private persons. However, the results of this research are contrasted. Private international law is unable to address the difficulties related to the access to the courts. Before judges, the treatment of State insolvency can only be fragmentary. By contrast, at a substantial level, some private international law mechanisms can sustain progress. If they are adjusted, they ensure a certain amount of state insolvency regulation.

Les créances du salarié n’ont pas la même nature que les autres créances dont l’employeur peut être débiteur. Elles ont une nature alimentaire qui justifie une protection exorbitante en cas de placement de l’employeur en procédure collective. Une garantie originale des créances salariales a été créée pour pallier l’insolvabilité de l’employeur. L’objet de cette thèse est de rechercher la nature de cette garantie et d’analyser sa dynamique. La garantie des salaires n’a pas la nature d’un privilège puisqu’elle n’est pas assise sur les biens mobiliers et immobiliers de l’entreprise, mais sur les cotisations y afférentes. Elle n’a pas non plus la nature d’une assurance sociale, car la sécurité sociale est fondée sur une logique d’universalité et recouvre des mécanismes multirisques, alors que la garantie des salaires ne bénéficie qu’aux salariés et ne couvre que le risque de non-paiement des salaires. La dynamique de cette garantie permet de montrer que son objet ne se limite pas seulement au salaire, il s’étend aux accessoires du salaire et aux dommages-intérêts notamment ceux liés à un licenciement sans cause réelle et sérieuse ou en cas d’irrégularité de procédure. L’extension du champ des créances garanties permet davantage la sauvegarde de l’entreprise que de l’emploi. Cette dynamique incite, dans une certaine mesure, à la destruction de l’emploi, car les ruptures du contrat de travail auxquelles résultent les créances garanties sont fermées dans les délais qui ne permettent pas la mise en œuvre effective des mesures de maintien de l’emploi. L’employeur est toutefois le responsable principal de l’indemnisation des salariés, car c’est lui le titulaire du pouvoir dans l’entreprise. L’AGS, association patronale, est un responsable supplétif, mais d’autres responsables alternatifs existent. Cette thèse s’achève par une évolution souhaitant la construction du droit social des entreprises en défaillance pour supprimer, sinon réduire les incohérences constatées dans la mise en mouvement de la garantie. / The employer’s debt to the employee has a particular nature. As the payment is necessary for the employee’s maintenance it justifies a specific protection within the collective insolvency proceedings. A particular guarantee is offered to the employees. This PHD’s aim is to study this guarantee’s nature and its dynamic. This guarantee does not consist on a preference over others debtor in the employer’s goods seizure. It is financed by the employer’s contribution. It is neither a social security’s insurance, as it only covers employees and not the whole population. This guarantee concerns not only wages but also all other employer’s debt to the employee’s even unemployment remedies. The institution in charge of this guarantee is a back-up guarantor. The main guarantor remains the employer. This PHD plead for a new social law applicable to firms in collective insolvency proceedings in order to solve the current guarantee’s issues.

Alors que de nombreuses réflexions doctrinales viennent remettre en cause l'analyse classique du contrat, notamment du point de vue de la liberté contractuelle en raison des nombreux impératifs auxquels est soumise la formation du contrat, la force obligatoire du contrat demeure assez largement conçue comme un principe absolu. Les présentations de la force obligatoire du contrat ne font en effet apparaître que très peu d'aménagements, analysés comme des atteintes à ce principe, ce qui laisse sous-entendre que l'exécution du contrat doit rester fidèle à ce qui a été voulu au moment de la formation du contrat. La confrontation de ce principe aux règles des droits de l'insolvabilité (droit des entreprises en difficulté et droit du surendettement des particuliers) doit pourtant conduire à une reconsidération de la théorisation de la force obligatoire du contrat. Ces législations portent en effet des atteintes très importantes à l'irrévocabilité et à l'intangibilité du contrat, règles classiquement déduites du concept de force obligatoire du contrat. Or il est symptomatique que l'élargissement du domaine d'éligibilité de ces procédures ait pour conséquence de permettre à tout sujet de droit de bénéficier de ces aménagements du contrat, dès lors que les conditions légales sont remplies. Il en résulte, réciproquement, que tout contractant est exposé au risque de voir son cocontractant soumis à une procédure d'insolvabilité. La présentation absolue du principe de la force obligatoire du contrat doit donc laisser sa place à une conception relativisée de la force obligatoire du contrat, laquelle s'exprime techniquement par une nouvelle répartition des risques du contrat prenant en compte le risque spécifique d'insolvabilité. / While some opinions of the modern legal scholarship tend to a renewal of the classical contract law analysis, especially with regard to freedom of contract which formation is submitted to numerous legal limitations, the prevailing view is still that sanctity of contract is an absolute principle. The traditionnal presentation leaves room for very few adjustments of contract once concluded, these alterations being deemed to be infrigments to sanctity of contract, so that the respect of the principle would necessarily require a faithful performance of what was intended and determined at the formation of the agreement. Nevertheless, confrontation of sanctity of contract with rules of insolvency (i.e. the law relevant to companies and individuals in situation of bankruptcy) impose to reconsider the theoretical conceptualisation of the former. Indeed, this law substantially affects both irrevocability and immutability of contract, two principles classically considered as consequencies of sanctity of contract. By the way, noteworthy is the extension of the scope of exigibility to insolvency proceedings thereupon permitting every juridical person to benefit from contractual modifications they give rise to, provided that legal requirements are fulfilled. As a result, any party to a contract is conversely exposed to the risk of his co-contractor being subjected to an insolvency proceeding. The absolute doctrine of sanctity of contract must therefore be rejected and the relativity of the concept ascertained, technically this proposal is substantiated with a new approach of allocation of contractual risks, including the specific risk of insolvency.

The regulation of bankruptcy poses a dilemma to societies. It needs to address two problems at once: the first concerns the balance between debtor and creditor interests; the second pertains to the question between deterrence and continuity. Up to the present day there is much disagreement about the appropriate design of bankruptcy procedures. German states in the nineteenth-century found it impossible to agree on a common insolvency regime until the 1870s. This thesis investigates the legal as well as the social process of bankruptcy in a sample of towns and states in Germany between 1815 and 1870. It focused on non-Prussian legal systems in order to shed light on those alternative solutions to bankruptcy that were not ultimately adopted in the national bankruptcy code. Bankruptcy was a social process that could take place in court as well as out of court. Creditors and debtors had strong incentives to turn to extrajudicial settlement mechanisms. Where strong local corporate organisations for merchants existed, they facilitated settlements and rule-enforcement among its members out of the official court system. Those local clubs often played the role of an arbitrator. For long, bankruptcy regulation had been part of the mercantile self-administration. Legal harmonization and processes of state formation put an end to these practises. Simultaneously, an industrializing economy devised new organisational forms that were alien to the old legal framework. Toward the second half of the century, legal harmonization gained momentum; creditor protection became the focus of lawmakers while local communities and their interests no longer played a role. As German legislators built a national and universally shared legal framework, bankruptcy regulation ceased to be local and communal. This was to the liking of businessmen, who had long complained about legal fragmentation when trying to conduct business across different German regions.

This thesis is a study on solutions for cross-border insolvency of multinational corporate groups, with particular reference to the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings recast 2015 (EIR Recast). Multinational corporate groups are important players in the modern business world; how to treat them in cross-border insolvency context has been hotly debated. The main issue is how to preserve the value of the group under circumstances where member companies in the same group are in more than one country and subject to more than one set of insolvency law. The existing solutions include substantive consolidation, procedural consolidation proposed by cross-border insolvency law scholars, market/hybrid legal solutions aiming to avoid group-wide insolvency, and the EIR recast which unprecedentedly provides 'group coordination proceedings' to respond to this issue as a procedural cooperation framework. All these solutions will be examined in this thesis in the light of insolvency law/cross-border insolvency law theories and multinational enterprises theories. The aim of this thesis is to examine the existing solutions for cross-border insolvency of multinational corporate groups on the basis of a combination of insolvency law/cross-border insolvency law theories and multinational enterprises theories. The thesis starts from theoretical grounds of corporate rescue and argues that preservation of going concern value and respecting entity law are the goals of corporate rescue law. It further considers theories regarding multinational enterprises and its implications on developing cross-border insolvency solutions for multinational corporate groups. With an understanding of relevant theories, the thesis examines the procedural consolidation solution which focuses on insolvency jurisdictional rules. The result is that procedural consolidation may not be in line with the reality of how the groups are operated and may not provide certainty to the creditors and market. The thesis moves on to examine the market/hybrid legal solutions which purport to be able to avoid group-wide cross-border insolvency. It shows certain merits of these solutions and also reveals the limitations and uncertainty of them. Finally, it argues that a general insolvency cooperation framework- the new group coordination proceedings- is desirable to work as an alternative to the above-mentioned solutions with improved certainty. The thesis tries to improve the utility of the proceedings by providing a recommendation to one of their main weaknesses-the opt-out mechanism.