In view of the upcoming revision of the instrument, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg in collaboration with EAPIL and KU Leuven hosts a (hybrid) international conference on “The Brussels Ibis Reform” scheduled for Friday, 9 September 2022. As part of the ongoing efforts within EAPIL, the event will serve to discuss the results of the corresponding working group chaired by Burkhard Hess and Geert van Calster as well as the application of the Regulation in general. In addition, legal experts will present on pertinent topics such as insolvency proceedings, arbitration and third state relations. The overarching goal of the discourse is to prepare an academic position paper that is to advise the the European Commission in the – mandatory although delayed –  evaluation process.

Further information on the MPI Conference and online registration can be found in the attached programme and on the event’s website. A first overview of relevant aspects is provided in a Research Paper by Burkhard Hess.

Programme_The Brussels Ibis Reform

The Nigerian Bar Association recently published articles on Nigerian law. Interestingly, the first two articles are on Nigerian conflict of laws. This should probably not come as a surprise because the editor-in-chief, Professor Uche Chukwumaeze, specialises in Nigerian conflict of laws.

The articles and abstracts read as follows:

O Uka, “Internal Conflict of Laws in Nigeria: Making a Case for the Consolidation of Rules of Jurisdiction in Inter-State Disputes”

“Owing to the central place that jurisdiction occupies in the adjudication process in Nigeria, jurisdictional conflicts will continue to take up precious judicial time into the foreseeable future. A lesser-known facet of these conflicts is the one among the various High Courts in Nigeria in actions in personam. Until recently, Nigerian courts have had to resolve these conflicts and generally interprete internal conflict of laws questions without the benefit of the direction that legislation and high-quality academic works provide. This paper examined the position on the jurisdiction of courts in inter-State jurisdictional challenges in actions in personam. It analysed decisions which tackled territorial jurisdiction challenges in actions in personam with a view to highlighting their inherent errors. Ultimately, the paper proposed a hierarchical roadmap for Nigerian courts to adopt in determining the issue of jurisdiction in inter-State in personam disputes which if followed, would potentially go a long way towards resolving the protracted jurisdictional conflicts between Nigerian courts, reduce the largely unnecessary challenges to these courts’ authority, significantly reduce the notorious delays in the determination of cases in Nigeria, and eliminate one of the biggest impediments to the smooth administration of the justice delivery system in Nigeria.”

I Olawunmi, “Party Autonomy and Commercial Expectations: How are the Nigerian Courts faring on Choice of Law and Forum Clauses in Contracts beyond Borders?”

“Where a contract bears a transnational coloration, it is only instinctual to have the parties agree on specific arrangements to guide their commercial endeavour. It is a legal right for parties to a contract to freely negotiate the terms to govern their agreement. This underpins the principle of party autonomy that guides the law of contract globally. It is a common practice to have parties to an international commercial contract select the law to govern their agreement. Since conflict is inevitable in any human relationship, parties can also agree to the forum to resolve their disputes. Parties can choose arbitration or even litigate in a foreign court over a contractual dispute. This paper aims to x-ray party autonomy, law and forum clauses, their different effects and the judicial attitude of Nigerian courts to them, especially for contracts entered into and/or are to be performed in Nigeria. The author adopts the doctrinal methodology of research, with reliance placed on both primary and secondary sources. This paper recommends that the courts should not derogate from the doctrine of party autonomy in determining commercial disputes as practical as possible, as this would help investors achieve their contractual goals.”

Written by Dr. Meng Yu and Dr. Guodong Du, co-founders of China Justice Observer*

On 21 August 2022, China Justice Observer released the 2022 version of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments. To date, we have collected 89 cases involving China and 24 foreign States and regions. (Note: Foreign divorce judgments are excluded in the Case List.)

The Case List was issued on July 16, 2019, and is updated annually. The 2020 update was also posted on Conflictoflaws.net.

The full version of the 2022 List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments is available here.

The key features of the updated list are:

• The List comprises 24 concise reports for each jurisdiction, together with a chart of bilateral judicial assistance treaties which China has concluded with 39 States, of which 35 bilateral treaties include judgment enforcement clauses.
• A total of 17 newly added cases involve eight jurisdictions, namely, the US (six cases), South Korea (three cases), Singapore (two cases), Australia (two cases), New Zealand (one case), Italy (one case), Germany (one case), and the UK (one case). Please note that in the German case, the Saarbrücken Regional Court of Germany refused to recognize and enforce a Chinese judgment on the ground of lack of reciprocity, despite the fact that, as early as 2013, China confirmed that there was reciprocity between the two countries. Please also note that in the UK case, the Shanghai Maritime Court of China ruled to recognize and enforce an English judgment, marking the first time that an English monetary judgment has been enforced in China based on reciprocity.
• As a landmark judicial policy issued by China’s Supreme People’s Court, the 2021 Conference Summary provides a detailed guideline for Chinese courts to review foreign judgment-related applications. It significantly lowers the threshold by liberalizing the reciprocity test, while providing a much clearer standard for Chinese judges to examine applications for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The aforementioned UK case is a good example, because one key to ensuring the enforcement of English judgments is the reciprocal relationship between China and England (or the UK, if in a wider context), which, under the de jure reciprocity test (one of the new three tests), was confirmed in this case. Another interesting example would be a series of cases where a Chinese court in Guangzhou recognized and enforced compensatory damages awarded in three U.S. EB-5 Visa fraud judgments, but rejected the punitive damages awarded therein, echoing the same rule laid down in the 2021 Conference Summary.
• Each case has been reviewed and more details, such as the case numbers and causes of action, have been added. Please note that we updated the information for existing cases involving the UAE and Italy.
• Case analyses have been aggregated under the country tags, so it is now easier to track down relevant cases, together with their information and analyses, in each country/region report. For example, under the tag ‘US-China Judgments Recognition and Enforcement’, one can find relevant case analyses involving mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments between the US and China.

As always, we endeavor to collect all Chinese court decisions involving the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (“REFJ”), and foreign counterparts concerning the recognition and enforcement of Chinese judgments. The Case List is made available for our readers to build reasonable expectations on REFJ in China.

The Case List is continually updated with new reports. Case information, comments, and suggestions are most welcome. Please feel free to contact Ms. Meng YU via e-mail at meng.yu@chinajusticeobserver.com .

*We would like to thank the following persons/institutions that shared thoughts and valuable information with us:

Dr. Béligh Elbalti, Associate Professor, Graduate School of Law and Politics, Osaka University, Japan; Dr. ZHANG Wenliang, Associate Professor, School of Law, Renmin University of China; Dr. SU Xiaoling, Lawyer at Beijing DHH Law Firm; Mr. WANG Chengjie, Lawyer at Allbright Law Offices (Shanghai);Wonbanglaw; Ms. Renee M Wong, Attorney at Goldberger and Dubin PC (New York); Dr. WANG Yahan, Associate Professor, Henan University School of Law; Mr. Angus Ni, Litigation attorney at AFN Law PLLC (Seattle); Asian Business Law Institute.

The latest issue (2022/2) of the Dutch/English journal  Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht is dedicated to cross-border involvency.

Editorial: P.M. Veder, De Wet internationaal insolventierecht / p. 203-207

Articles

Welling-Steffens, Hoofdlijnen voor een wettelijke regeling van het commune internationaal insolventierecht. Bevoegdheid inzake, toepasselijk recht op, en erkenning van ‘derde-lands’ insolventieprocedures en aanverwante vorderingen / p. 208-226

Abstract

This article outlines a proposal on principles for future Dutch legislation on international insolvency law in relation to foreign insolvency proceedings held in so-called third countries (i.e. non-EU states). Itcommences with an overview of the current status of the Dutch national private international law rulesin respect of jurisdiction in, the applicable law to and the recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and related actions held in third countries. Other than three scant provisions in the Dutch Bankruptcy Act, there is no legislation in relation to international insolvency law regarding foreign non-EU insolvency proceedings and the current rules are all based on case law, culminating in the Yukos case decided by the Dutch Supreme Court. Subsequently, the author, inspired by such Dutch case law, previous proposals on international insolvency law in the Netherlands like the 2007 legislative pre-proposal of the Kortmann Committee on insolvency, the UNCITRAL Model Laws and the various proposals put forward in Dutch legal literature, outlines a proposal on principles for legislative rules on (indirect) jurisdiction in, the applicable law to and the recognition of foreign (non-EU) insolvency proceedings.

Madaus, The German law on the recognition of foreign insolvency and restructuring proceedings / p. 227-240

Abstract

The recognition of third country insolvency proceedings in Germany does not follow the mechanisms of the EIR but falls within the scope of the respective national frameworks of international insolvency law. While Germany did not adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, §§ 335-359 InsO provide rules that in many respects even resemble those of the EIR 2000. The framework is more recognition-friendly than the Model Law and is accompanied by rules for the recognition of foreign judgments in civil and commercial matters as well as Private International Law rules on the recognition of any modification of substantive rights by foreign law. Non-EU main restructuring and insolvency proceedings including their plans – in particular US Chapter 11 plans – are thereby routinely recognized in Germany without any need for court involvement. The recognition of scheme-type procedures would be available under these frameworks, but probably not under the cross-border insolvency framework.

Garcimartín & N. Bermejo, Spanish national rules on cross-border insolvency proceedings: a symmetrical approach / p. 241-251

Abstract

This paper examines the Spanish national rules on cross-border insolvency proceedings applicable vis-à-vis non-EU countries (including Denmark) laid down in Book III of the Spanish Insolvency Act. These rules aim to extend unilaterally the model of mitigated universalism enshrined in the EU Regulation outside its scope of application. According to those rules, the main insolvency proceedings will be opened in Spain if the debtor has its centre of main interests (COMI) here in Spain and, as a result, their opening, as well as their effects, conduct and closure, will be regulated by the Spanish Insolvency Act (lex fori concursus), with certain exceptions. Likewise, territorial proceedings may be opened in Spain if the debtor’s COMI is located in a third country, but it has an establishment here. Likewise, the paper studies the specific rules for the recognition in Spain of insolvency proceedings opened in foreign (non-EU) countries (including Denmark) and the rules on coordination and cooperation between proceedings. In addition, it describes the rules on the publicity of insolvency proceedings, information for foreign creditors and the submission of their claims. Finally, it analyses the rule of negative reciprocity, which constitutes a general safeguard in the event of a lack of reciprocal cooperation by the corresponding third country.

T.H.D. Struycken, Grensoverschrijdende insolventieprocedures en rechten op goederen in andere landen / p. 251-276

Abstract

Article 8 of the EU Insolvency Regulation (2015 recast) dominates the current thinking on insolvency proceedings in relation to rights in rem in assets situated in other jurisdictions. Implicit in the rule is the assumption that recognition of foreign security interests is too complicated. Hence, rights in assets in other EU Member States are de facto excluded from the insolvency proceedings. This article analyses the justification for the rule in Article 8, and rejects it. Recognition of foreign rights in rem is, and should be, the basic principle in the Netherlands, both outside and inside cross-border insolvency proceedings. The author proposes not to mirror Article 8 when codifying the PIL rules for cross-border insolvency proceedings outside the scope of the EU Insolvency Regulation, and formulates a first draft for a possible statutory rule.

P.M. Veder, Verrekening in de Wet internationaal insolventierecht / p. 277-287

Abstract

The Dutch government has announced that it will prepare draft legislation to address the cross-border aspects of insolvency proceedings that fall outside the scope of the EU Insolvency Regulation. This article examines which rules should be included in such draft legislation concerning set-off. It critically analyzes the approach to set-off in the European Insolvency Regulation and looks at the current state of play at UNCITRAL. The conclusion is that, even though the approach to set-off in Article 9(1) EIR is not convincing – there is no sound justification for offering protection to a creditor on the basis of the law applicable to the insolvent debtor’s claim – the Dutch legislator would nevertheless be well advised to follow the rules in the EIR concerning the applicable law, including Article 9(1) EIR, as much as possible. By following the rules in the EIR on the applicable law, insolvency proceedings and their effects are governed by the same law, regardless of whether the EU Insolvency Regulation applies or not. This promotes legal certainty and the practical applicability of a statutory regulation of cross-border insolvency proceedings in Dutch customary private international law.

C.G. van der Plas, Informatievergaring door buitenlandse curatoren in Nederland – heden en toekomst / p. 288-302

Abstract

It is not uncommon for foreign bankruptcy trustees to encounter Dutch entities or Dutch bank accounts when settling the bankruptcy. Think, for example, of a foreign bankruptcy in which the bankrupt entity has siphoned off assets through a web of entities in various jurisdictions. In order to be able to follow the bankrupt’s trail across the border, the bankruptcy trustee needs information about those entities. This article examines the means of discovery available to a bankruptcy trustee in a foreign (non-EU) bankruptcy in the Netherlands. After identifying the problems that a foreign bankruptcy trustee may be confronted with under the current Dutch system, the possibilities offered by the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency will be examined. The article concludes with a recommendation for a future amendment to the Dutch Bankruptcy Act.

Pepels, Het Nederlandse internationaal groepsinsolventierecht – cause for concern? / p. 303-318

Abstract

Following the drafting of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act in the 1890s, the manner in which large enterprises are legally organized has undergone significant changes. Multinational groups of companies have become an important driving force behind the Dutch and the European economies. Dutch domestic international insolvency law, however, does not address the issues that are specific to cross-border group insolvencies. In this article, the author sets out to analyze whether there is any need for a Dutch domestic law on cross-border group insolvencies and, if so, what the contours thereof should be. In doing so, the article discusses the provisions on cross-border group insolvency as introduced by the 2017 EU Insolvency Regulation (recast) and UNCITRAL’s 2019 Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency. As the Dutch legislator is currently evaluating the options to revise the Dutch Bankruptcy Act on the topic of domestic cross-border insolvency law, the article concludes with various recommendations on group insolvencies that could align the legal treatment of insolvent multinational groups of companies more with the economic reality.