Advertisement

The Puzzle of the New European COMI Rules: Rethinking COMI in the Age of Multinational, Digital and Glocal Enterprises

  • Renato ManganoEmail author
Article
  • 89 Downloads

Abstract

EU Regulation 2015/848 (Recast) laid down new rules on the debtor’s ‘centre of main interests’ (COMI) both to make it easier to determine international jurisdiction and to prevent a debtor from fraudulently relocating his/her/its COMI from one Member State to another. However, the terms of the litigation concerning the NIKI case and an in-depth analysis of the Recast demonstrate that this operation has been unsuccessful. This paper argues: first, that the new COMI rules contain logical and teleological flaws; secondly, that the prerequisite that the COMI ‘shall be the place […] which is ascertainable by third parties’ is a duplicate of the prerequisite ‘on a regular basis’; thirdly, that the ‘ascertainability’ prerequisite could even prove to be problematic when insolvency occurs within an enterprise that is multinational in nature; and/or conducts its relationships with suppliers and customers through digital networks; and/or deals with a business having glocal considerations. Consequently, this paper puts forward a proposal for a better regulation that would aim both at fixing the regulatory flaws and at addressing more efficiently insolvencies within multinational, digital and glocal enterprises.

Keywords

EU Regulation 2015/848 (Recast) International jurisdiction COMI Multinational group of companies Digital enterprises NIKI 

Notes

References

  1. Canaris C-W (1983) Die Feststellung von Lücken im Gesetz. Eine methodologische Studie über Voraussetzungen und Grenzen der richterlichen Rechtsfortbildung praeter legem, 2nd edn. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dawson M, De Witte B, Muir E (2013) Judicial activism at the European Court of Justice. Edward Elgar, CheltenhamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. European Commission (2012) Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment Accompanying the Document Revision of Regulation (EC) no 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings (SWD/2012/0416 final). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52012SC0416&from=EN. Accessed 10 Jul 2018
  4. Fletcher I (2005) Insolvency in private international law, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Fletcher I (2009) Scope and jurisdiction. In: Moss G, Fletcher I, Isaacs S (eds) The EC Regulation on insolvency proceedings. A commentary and annotated guide, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 41–53Google Scholar
  6. Fletcher I (2016) Scope and jurisdiction. In: Moss G, Fletcher I, Isaacs S (eds) The EC Regulation on insolvency proceedings. A commentary and annotated guide, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 52–56Google Scholar
  7. Hess B (2014) Jurisdiction. In: Hess B, Oberhammer P, Pfeiffer T (eds) European Insolvency Regulation. The Heidelberg-Luxembourg-Vienna report. Beck, Munich, pp 69–152Google Scholar
  8. Lasser M de S-O-l'E (2009) Judicial deliberations: a comparative analysis of transparency and legitimacy. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Mangano R (2016) International jurisdiction. In: Bork R, Mangano R (eds) European cross-border insolvency law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 77–113Google Scholar
  10. Pannen K (2007) Art. 3. In: Pannen K (ed) European Insolvency Regulation. Commentary. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 66–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ringe G (2016) Article 3. In: Bork R, van Zwieten K (eds) Commentary on the European Insolvency Regulation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 118–194Google Scholar
  12. Robinson R (1963) Definition. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. UNCITRAL (2014) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with guide to enactment and interpretation. http://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/insolven/1997-Model-Law-Insol-2013-Guide-Enactment-e.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2018
  14. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2010a) Interpretation and application of selected concepts of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency relating to centre of main interests (COMI). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.95Google Scholar
  15. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2010b) Interpretation and application of selected concepts of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency relating to centre of main interests (COMI). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.95/Add.1Google Scholar
  16. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2011a) Interpretation and application of selected concepts of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency relating to centre of main interests (COMI). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.99Google Scholar
  17. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2011b) Proposal for a definition of ‘centre of main interests’ (Articles 2 (b) and 16 (3) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency) by the delegations of Mexico, Spain and the Union Internationale des Avocats (UIA). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.101Google Scholar
  18. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2012a) Interpretation and application of selected concepts of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency relating to centre of main interests (COMI). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.103Google Scholar
  19. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2012b) Interpretation and application of selected concepts of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency relating to centre of main interests (COMI). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.103/Add.1Google Scholar
  20. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2012c) Interpretation and application of selected concepts of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency relating to centre of main interests (COMI). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.107Google Scholar
  21. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2013a) Interpretation and application of selected concepts of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency relating to centre of main interests (COMI). A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.112Google Scholar
  22. UNCITRAL Working Group V (2013b) Centre of main interests in the context of an enterprise group. A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.114Google Scholar
  23. Virgós M, Schmit E (1996) Report on the Convention of Insolvency Proceedings. http://aei.pitt.edu/952/1/insolvency_report_schmidt_1988.pdf. Accessed 10 Jul 2018
  24. Wessels B (2012) International insolvency law. Kluwer, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  25. Wood A (2016) (Recast Regulation) Article 3—international jurisdiction. In: Moss G, Fletcher I, Isaacs S (eds) The EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 443–450Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Professor of Commercial LawUniversity of PalermoPalermoItaly

Personalised recommendations