Journal of Private Law

Journal of Private Law

Choice of Competent Court and Applicable Law on Insolvency of Multinational Enterprises Group

Authors
Kourosh Kavyani Baghbadorani
Saideh Ghassemi Moghaddam
Abstract
Multinational enterprises group insolvency is the obvious sample of cross-border insolvency. One of the most important questions in the cross-border insolvency discussion is how to determine the competent court and applicable law.  To answer this question, three approaches (universalism, territorialism and contractualism) are brought forth to discussion. However the criteria presenting by these approaches, aren’t in accord with the insolvency state of multinational enterprises group. The diversified and complicated structure of multinational enterprises on the one hand, and their activities in different venues with different legal systems on the other hand, make doubts about determining the appropriate legal system applicable on their activity, especially on their state of Insolvency.
This article attempts to deal with the criteria of these three above mentioned approaches and determine the appropriate legal system which is in accord with the diversified structure of multinational enterprise group. According to the ninth section of Trade Law Bill concerning the International Insolvency, the approach of Iran legislator will be analyzed in this respect.
Keywords
multinational enterprise group
cross-border insolvency
universalism approach
territorialism approach
contractualism approach
آیین‌نامه اجرایی قانون اجازه ثبت شعبه یا نمایندگی شرکت‌های خارجی مصوب 1378.
قانون اجازه ثبت شعبه یا نمایندگی شرکت‌های خارجی مصوب 1376.
لایحه جدید قانون تجارت مصوب مجلس 1391.
موافقتنامه معاضدت قضایی در زمینه امور حقوقی و تجاری بین جمهوری اسلامی ایران و جمهوری تونس1387.
Fletcher, Ian F. Insolvency in Private International Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/LTD/V06/574/64/PDF/V0657464.pdf?OpenElement
LoPucki, Lynn M. “Cooperation in International Bankruptcy: A Post-Universalist Approach.” Cornell Law Review84 (1999): 692-762.
LoPucki, Lynn M. “The Case for Cooperative Territoriality in International Bankruptcy.” Michigan Law Review 98 (2000): 2216-2251.
Mevorach, Irit. “The ‘Home Country’ of a Multinational Enterprise Group Facing Insolvency.” International and Comparative Law Quarterly57 (2008): 427-448.
Mevorach, Irit. “Toward a Consensus on the Treatment of Multinational Enterprise Groups in Insolvency.” Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law 18 (2010): 359-91.
Mevorach, Irit. Insolvency within Multinational Enterprise Group. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Rajak, Harry. “Corporate Groups and Cross-border Bankruptcy.” Texas International Law Journal 44 (2009): 521-554.
Rasmussen, Robert K. “The Problem of Corporate Groups, a Comment on Professor Ziegel.” Fordham Journal of Corporation and Financial Law7 (2002): 395-425.
UNCITRAL Document A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.74, Report of the Working Group V, Vienna, 2006. Available at:
UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law, Part three: Treatment of enterprise groups in Insolvency, New York, United Nation Publication, 2012. Available at: http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/insolven/Leg-Guide-Insol-Part3-ebook-E.pdf
Warren, E., and J. Westbrook, “Contracting Out of Bankruptcy: An Empirical Intervention.” Harvard Law Review 118 (2005).
Westbrook, J. Lawrence. “A Global Solution to Multinational Default.” Michigan Law Review 98 (2000).
Westbrook, J. Lawrence. “Locating the Eye of the Financial Storm.” Brooklyn Journal of International Law 32 (2007).
Westbrook, J. Lawrence. “Multinational Enterprises in General Default: Chapter 15, The ALI Principles, and the EU Insolvency Regulation.” American Bankruptcy Law Journal 76 (2002).
Yamauchi, Keith D. “Should Reciprocity Be a Part of the UNCITRAL Model Cross-border Insolvency Law?.” INSOL International Insolvency Review 16 (2007).
Journal of Private Law
Volume 1, Issue 1
September 2013
Pages 8-35