Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-gtxcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T16:18:32.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 2 - Jurisdictional Principles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 September 2018

Get access

Summary

Cross-border insolvencies necessarily concern the territories of at least two sovereign, equal-ranking states. The administration of insolvency proceedings must therefore take into account that neither state can impose the effects of its own law upon the other. Of course, state A can – on the grounds of its own crossborder insolvency law – deliberately acknowledge the decisions of state B and use them in its own territory. It is also possible for state A to request that state B does so in return, i.e. that it acknowledges and enforces the insolvency decisions of state A. However, a legal obligation for state B to do so can only be grounded in its own national or in binding transnational cross-border insolvency law. Where we find such laws, they are based on fundamental principles, which we will label ‘jurisdictional principles’. Their primary focus is on the relationship between the autonomous states involved in the proceedings; this will be explored in further detail in this chapter.

UNITY

The first – albeit often neglected – principle to be emphasised is the principle of unity. In the context of cross-border insolvencies, its meaning is that there shall be no more than one single insolvency procedure governing the debtor's insolvency. Unity therefore contrasts with plurality; plurality would refer to cross-border insolvencies for which there are multiple proceedings, due to assets of the debtor being located in multiple states. If state A (regarding its own national cross-border insolvency law) decides in favour of the principle of plurality, no effects seem to be extended to other states, as the national law then restricts these effects to its own territory. However, this can hardly be true. Where, for example, state A opens insolvency proceedings on the basis of the plurality principle and the debtor has no assets in state B, but does have creditors or contract partners in state B, a cross-border issue emerges, whether state A accepts this or not. No insolvency proceedings can be opened in state B as there are no assets located therein.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Intersentia
Print publication year: 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×