International insolvency law: future perspectives

Book English OPEN
Parry, R ; Omar, PJ (2015)
  • Publisher: INSOL Europe
  • References (65)
    65 references, page 1 of 7

    4 A. Ranney-Marinelli, “Overview of Chapter 15 Ancillary and Other Cross-Border Cases” (2008) 82 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 269, at 303: “[A] third approach is to interpret §1509(f) broadly, permitting many types of relief to fall under the rubric of 'collecting or recovering a claim which is property of the debtor,” so that Chapter 15 recognition is not required.”; D. Stromes, “The Extraterritorial Reach of the Bankruptcy Code's Automatic Stay: Theory vs. Practice” (2007) 33 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 277; J. Pottow, “The Myth (and Realities) of Forum Shopping in Transnational Insolvency” (2007) 32 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 785.

    6 Ofcfiial Receiver v. Eichler [2007] BPIR 1636, at [14], [16] (Ch. D.) (noting the right of a debtor to change his centre of main interests); Shierson v. Vlieland-Boddy [2005] EWCA Civ 974, at [55] (Ct. of App. Civ. Div.).

    10 Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V. v. Stonington Partners, Inc., 268 B.R. 395 (D. Del. 2001), rev'd, 310 F.3d 118 (3d Cir. 2002), on remand In re Lernout & Hauspie Speech Products N.V., 301 B.R. 651 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003). See J. Westbrook, “Universalism and Choice of Law” (2005) 23 Penn State International Law Review 625 (discussing Lernout at length); J. Westbrook, “International Judicial Negotiation” (2003) 38 Texas International Law Journal 567 (referring to Lernout in footnotes); J. Pottow, “Greed and Pride in International Bankruptcy: The Problems of and Proposed Solutions to 'Local Interests'” (2006) 104 Michigan Law Review 1899 (discussing Lernout); L. Salaafi, “Cross-Border Insolvency in the United States and its Application to Multinational Corporate Groups” (2006) 21 Connecticut Journal of International Law 297, at 332 (discussing Lernout); K. Beckering, “United States Cross-Border Corporate Insolvency: The Impact of Chapter 15 on Comity and the New Legal Environment” (2008) 14 Law and Business Review of America 281, at 308-309 (referring to Lernout in footnote); L. LoPucki, “Global and Out of Control?” (2005) 79 American Bankruptcy Law Journal 79, at 92 (discussing Lernout); J. Pottow, “Procedural Incrementalism: A Model for International Bankruptcy” (2005) 45 Virginia Journal of International Law 935 (2005) (discussing Lernout in footnotes).

    11 As to choice of labour law, for example, see J. Westbrook, “Multinational Financial Distress: The Last Hurrah of Territorialism” (2006) 41 Texas International Law Journal 321, reviewing L. LoPucki, Courting Failure: How Competition for Big Cases is Corrupting the Bankruptcy Courts (2005, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor MI).

    12 For example, in the COMI context, I have argued that “too exclusive a focus on predictability is…a mistake, especially if it leads to a rule that would choose legal 'havens' as COMIs.” J. Westbrook, “Locating the Eye of the Financial Storm” (2007) 32 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 1019, at 1028.

    20 American Law Institute, Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (2003, ALI, Philadelphia PA), at 86-88 (“Principles”).

    24 See generally, S. Johnston, “Why U.S. Courts Should Deny or Severely Condition Recognition to Schemes of Arrangement for Solvent Insurance Companies” (2007) 16 Journal of Bankruptcy Law and Practice 6, Art. 2, 1.

    25 See Lion City Run-Off Private Limited, Case No. 06-B-10461 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 13 April 2006); In re Gordian Run-Off (UK) Ltd., Case No. 06-11563 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 28 August 2006); In re Europaische RuckversicherungsGesellschaft in Zurich (European Reinsurance Company of Zurich), Case No. 06-13061 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 22 January 2007); In re Lloyd, No. 05-60100, 2005 Bankr. LEXIS 2794 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 7 December 2005).

    27 In re Cenargo International, PLC, 294 B.R. 571 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y 2003).

    28 See also In re Yukos Oil Co., 321 B.R. 396 (Bankr. S.D.Tex. 2005), which upheld Cenargo-like technical jurisdiction, but was dismissed on the grounds of prudence rather than traditional bases likeforum non conveniens or abstention.

  • Metrics
    views in OpenAIRE
    views in local repository
    downloads in local repository

    The information is available from the following content providers:

    From Number Of Views Number Of Downloads
    Institutional Repository - IRUS-UK 0 383
Share - Bookmark