Prospects for Cross-Border Insolvency Regulation in the EAEU
_1677840538.png)
Sidney Brooks
Judge (Ret.), United States Bankruptcy Court
Ekaterina Papchenkova
Генеральный директор, Центр международных и сравнительно-правовых исследований
Ernest Iskakov
Director of Bankruptcy Department, Ministry of Economy of the Kyrgyz Republic
Stanislav Sadovnikov
Deputy Director, Department of Sanation and Bankruptcy, Ministry of Economy of Belarus
_1677850427.png)
Ekaterina Salugina-Sorokovaya
Aigul Ualiyeva
Head of the Financial Resolution Department, Committee of State Revenues, Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Kazakhstan
_1677844212.png)
Jennifer Clift
Principal Legal Officer, United Nations Commission on International Trade Law
Stephan Madaus
Professor, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg
_1677847398.png)
Elena Mokhova
Associate Professor, Department of International Public and Private Law, National Research University – Higher School of Economics
On May 17, 2018, within the International Insolvency Forum International and Comparative Law Research Center held a roundtable on the topic of Prospects for cross-border insolvency regulation in the EAEU: how to open the boundaries for the foreign insolvencies and not to become affected by regulatory competition and forum shopping?
The most optimal solution of cross-border insolvencies regulation for the Member States of the EAEU was discussed within the session.
Under the integration within the EAEU the economies of the Member States become more and more unified. In this situation, when insolvency procedure extends beyond the borders of one single state, the new challenge appears — the creation of the instruments for cross-border insolvency regulation. Under what circumstances the foreign entities become the subject of insolvency procedure? How should we recognize the foreign insolvency proceedings? How to avoid cross-border transactions, how to pierce the corporate veil and make foreign controlling entities subsidiary liable etc.?
Indeed, the pattern of insolvency laws of the EAEU Member States is diversified. For instance, under the Kazakh laws, the variety of rehabilitation procedures is set up. In the Kyrgyz Republic, the institution of non-curial insolvency is envisaged, under which the judiciary functions are exercised by the creditors’ committee. Priority rules, secured creditors rights, the transactions avoidance rules, the right for set-off and etc. differ significantly in EAEU Member States. Consequently, the following question gets important: which risks and opportunities do businesses have under cross-border insolvency within the EAEU? Are there prospects for the forthcoming migration of debtors to the Member States, where the certain rehabilitation procedures are widely applied? Shall the creditors’ rush to the most loyal “creditor-friendly” regimes be foreseen instigated by the great volume of legal tools designed to challenge transactions and make the controlling entities of the debtor liable?
The other point of issue refers to the appreciation of states’ approach: how shall the Member States of the EAEU respond to the evolving “insolvency markets” and shall the Member States compete in order to elaborate the “best” insolvency laws? How can the states limit the forum shopping and the options to choose the most beneficial jurisdiction for the purpose of insolvency? How can the cross-border effect of insolvency be guaranteed? How to open borders to foreign bankruptcies and not to be affected by regulatory competition and unfair forum shopping?
The most optimal solution of cross-border insolvencies regulation for the Member States of the EAEU was discussed within the session.
Under the integration within the EAEU the economies of the Member States become more and more unified. In this situation, when insolvency procedure extends beyond the borders of one single state, the new challenge appears — the creation of the instruments for cross-border insolvency regulation. Under what circumstances the foreign entities become the subject of insolvency procedure? How should we recognize the foreign insolvency proceedings? How to avoid cross-border transactions, how to pierce the corporate veil and make foreign controlling entities subsidiary liable etc.?
Indeed, the pattern of insolvency laws of the EAEU Member States is diversified. For instance, under the Kazakh laws, the variety of rehabilitation procedures is set up. In the Kyrgyz Republic, the institution of non-curial insolvency is envisaged, under which the judiciary functions are exercised by the creditors’ committee. Priority rules, secured creditors rights, the transactions avoidance rules, the right for set-off and etc. differ significantly in EAEU Member States. Consequently, the following question gets important: which risks and opportunities do businesses have under cross-border insolvency within the EAEU? Are there prospects for the forthcoming migration of debtors to the Member States, where the certain rehabilitation procedures are widely applied? Shall the creditors’ rush to the most loyal “creditor-friendly” regimes be foreseen instigated by the great volume of legal tools designed to challenge transactions and make the controlling entities of the debtor liable?
The other point of issue refers to the appreciation of states’ approach: how shall the Member States of the EAEU respond to the evolving “insolvency markets” and shall the Member States compete in order to elaborate the “best” insolvency laws? How can the states limit the forum shopping and the options to choose the most beneficial jurisdiction for the purpose of insolvency? How can the cross-border effect of insolvency be guaranteed? How to open borders to foreign bankruptcies and not to be affected by regulatory competition and unfair forum shopping?
Other events
Thank you, your data is accepted!