Oversight and Financing of Cross-Border Business Enterprise Group Insolvency Proceedings
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I. INTRODUCTION Business insolvency is on the rise, made more complex because of the multinational nature of business structures and the global reach of their economic activities.1 The financial distress of an auto manufacturer in the United States can implicate its subsidiary parts firms in India and Korea, its related supply companies in Canada, its holding company in Germany, its special purpose financing vehicles in the United Kingdom, its debenture holders in Hong Kong, insurers in Bermuda, local sales outlets domestically and abroad, and the employees of all these related businesses. Businesses have frequently integrated their own financing and productive activities within a corporate group or business enterprise group with separate legal entities in each domestic jurisdiction and highly integrated capital and governance structures. When a business slides into financial distress, the very structure of these multinational business enterprise groups poses significant challenges for how to address the insolvency. The business is global, but the laws addressing insolvency are local.2 The ability of that business to restructure to become viable again or to liquidate to satisfy creditors' claims is highly dependent on the ease with which the insolvency law regimes of multiple jurisdictions can facilitate a fair and timely resolution to the business' financial distress. A number of international initiatives have facilitated cross-border recognition of insolvency proceedings. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency, for example, is aimed at facilitating recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings, while still allowing domestic courts to retain considerable jurisdiction over domestic proceedings.3 Courts apply the principles of comity and cooperation in order to conduct an orderly resolution of the firm's financial distress, whether that resolution entails liquidation, reorganization, or some combination of the two strategies.4 Currently, fifteen countries have adopted the Model Law, including the United States in its adoption of Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.5 These initiatives have increased the facility with which business insolvency is addressed in an increasingly globalized world. However, to date, the Model Law does not address corporate or enterprise groups.6 UNCITRAL has been deliberating for two years on how to recognize and address enterprise group insolvency.7 An important aspect of cross-border cooperation is the court's recognition and oversight of proceedings, including approval of interim financing for the insolvent business group during the period that it is seeking the protection of courtadministered proceedings to address the insolvency. Many multinational business enterprises, while comprised of multiple separate legal entities, are often governed centrally with their finances highly interwoven.8 On insolvency, creditors seek to realize their claims from the specific entity with which they have contracted. However, a myriad of problems arise in making those claims, for instance: assets against which creditors may have claims shifting to other entities within the business group, problems of jurisdiction for making and realizing claims, different priorities of claims in different jurisdictions, and challenges for continued operation of the business where there is a possibility for a viable workout. This article discusses recent developments in cross-border enterprise group insolvencies, including access to proceedings, the role of court oversight, and the availability of financing of the business during the period that it is trying to resolve its financial distress. Cross-border cooperation is a critically important aspect of international insolvency law, and there are mechanisms that can facilitate that cooperation. Equally, however, there are risks to creditors, particularly smaller stakeholders- such as trade suppliers, employees, and contingent claimants-who may be prejudiced by the recognition of a consolidated insolvency proceeding in a jurisdiction remote from their own. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».