UNCITRAL Model Law 1997

  • Elina Moustaira


The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency 1997 was developed to address problems and procedural differences between the countries, when handling issues of international insolvency. It was prepared in the frame of, and promulgated by UNCITRAL, “with the goals of enhancing cooperation between the actors in cross-border insolvency, promoting legal certainty in trade and investment, ensuring the fair and efficient administration of cross-border insolvencies, protecting debtors’ assets and rescuing businesses.”


  1. Adams ES, Fincke J (2009) Coordinating cross-border bankruptcy: how territorialism saves universalism. Columbia J Eur Law 15:43–85Google Scholar
  2. Ajinderpal S, Ng GX (2018) Cross-border Insolvency in Singapore: the effectiveness of the judicial insolvency network and the JIN guidelines on the administration of cross-border insolvency matters. INSOL International. Technical Series Issue No. 40Google Scholar
  3. Athanassiou LI (2015) Maritime cross-border insolvency [in Greek]. Nomiki Bibliothiki, AthensGoogle Scholar
  4. Baird DG, Rasmussen RK (2010) Anti-bankruptcy. Yale Law J 119:648–699Google Scholar
  5. Beavers E (2003) Bankruptcy law harmonization in the NAFTA countries: the case of the United States and Mexico. Columbia Bus Law Rev:965–1006Google Scholar
  6. Block-Lieb S, Halliday T (2007) Harmonization and modernization in UNCITRAL’s legislative guide on insolvency law. Tex Int Law J 42:475–514Google Scholar
  7. Bufford SL (2013) Coordination of insolvency cases for international enterprise groups: a proposal. Penn State Law Research Paper No. 1-2014. Available at:
  8. Chandra Mohan S (2012) Cross-border insolvency problems: is the UNCITRAL model law the answer? Int Insolv Rev 21:199–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chung JJ (2007) The retrogressive flaw of Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code: a lesson from maritime law. Duke J Comp Int Law 17:253–304Google Scholar
  10. Chung JJ (2014) In Re Qimonda AG: the conflict between comity and the public policy exception in Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. Boston Univ Int Law J 32:91–121Google Scholar
  11. Clift J (2009) International insolvency law: the UNCITRAL experience with harmonization and modernization techniques. Yearb Priv Int Law 11:405–424Google Scholar
  12. Clift J (2014) Choice of law and the UNCITRAL harmonization process. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:20–47Google Scholar
  13. Dawson AB (2009) Offshore bankruptcies. Nebraska Law Rev 88:317–340Google Scholar
  14. Dawson AB (2015) The problem of local methods in cross-border insolvencies. Berkeley Bus Law J 12:45–80Google Scholar
  15. DeLaughter H (2016) Why two facets of Chapter 15 rulings hinder cross-border insolvency petitions in the United States. Emory Bankruptcy Dev J 32:397–431Google Scholar
  16. Ferreres Comella V (2011) Courts in Latin America and the constraints of the civil law tradition. Tex Law Rev 89:1967–1975Google Scholar
  17. Forero-Niño L (2011) Mexicana airlines, one of the world’s oldest airlines, files for bankruptcy protection in Mexico and the United States and suspends flights until further notice. Law Bus Rev Am 17:361–374Google Scholar
  18. Franken SM (2014) Cross-border insolvency law: a comparative institutional analysis. Oxf J Leg Stud 34:97–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilhuly PM, Posin KA, Malatesta AE (2016) Bankruptcy without borders: a comprehensive guide to the first decade of Chapter 15. Am Bankruptcy Inst Law Rev 24:47–132Google Scholar
  20. Godwin A, Howse T, Ramsay I (2017) The inherent power of common law courts to provide assistance in cross-border insolvencies: from comity to complexity. Int Insolv Rev 26:5–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Graham-Canedo J (2007) Comparative analysis of bankruptcy legal provisions from Mexico and the United States: which legal system is more attractive? DePaul Bus Commer Law J 6:19–28Google Scholar
  22. Gropper AL (2011) The payment of priority claims in cross-border insolvency cases. Tex Int Law J 46:559–577Google Scholar
  23. Gropper AL (2014) The curious disappearance of choice of law as an issue in Chapter 15 cases. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:152–179Google Scholar
  24. Guzman A (2000) International bankruptcy: in defense of universalism. Mich Law Rev 98:2177–2215CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hannan NF (2015) Do words matter?: a comparative analysis of the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Doctoral thesis. University of Western Australia School of Law. Available at
  26. Hargovan A (2008) The cross-border insolvency act 2008 (Cth) – issues and implications. Aust J Corp Law 22:188–197Google Scholar
  27. Ho LC (2009) Cross-border fraud and cross-border insolvency: proving COMI and seeking recognition under the UK model law. J Int Bank Financ Law 29:537–542Google Scholar
  28. Ho LC (2010) Applying foreign law – realising the model law’s potential. J Int Bank Law Regul. Available at:
  29. Ho LC (2014) The revised UNCITRAL model law enactment guide – a welcome product? J Int Bank Law Regul:325–340Google Scholar
  30. Holzer J (2011) Die Empfehlungen der UNCITRAL zum nationalen und internationalen Konzerninsolvenzrecht. Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht 40:1894–1900Google Scholar
  31. Kirshner JA (2013) The (false) conflict between due process rights and universalism in cross-border insolvency. Camb Law J 72:27–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leong J (2012) Is Chapter 15 universalist or territorialist? Empirical evidence from United States Bankruptcy Court Cases. Wisconsin Int Law J 29:110–137Google Scholar
  33. Mannan M (2016) Are Bangladesh, India and Pakistan ready to adopt the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency? Int Insolv Rev 25:195–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Martinez E (2001) The new environment of insolvency in Mexico. Conn J Int Law 17:75–78Google Scholar
  35. Mason R (2006) Local proceedings in a multi-state liquidation: issues of jurisdiction. Melb Univ Law Rev 30:145–190Google Scholar
  36. Mason R (2012) Cross-border insolvency and legal transnationalisation. Int Insolv Rev 21:105–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCormack G (2016) US exceptionalism and US localism? Cross-border insolvency law in comparative perspective. Leg Stud 36:136–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCormack G, Hargovan A (2015) Australia and the international insolvency paradigm. Sydn Law Rev 37:389–416Google Scholar
  39. Mears P, Reveco R (2015) Chile’s new bankruptcy legislation to attract more foreign direct investment and international trade. Int Insolv Law Rev:18–30Google Scholar
  40. Mevorach I (2011) On the road to universalism: a comparative and empirical study of the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 12:517–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Montarcé I (2016) La quiebra de Compañia Mexicana de Aviación: Análisis del conflicto jurídico-político y sus consecuencias en los trabajadores. Alegatos 92:201–226Google Scholar
  42. Morawetz G (2012) Acceptance remarks of the honourable Geoffrey Morawetz. Emory Bankruptcy Dev J 29:5–13Google Scholar
  43. Moustaira EN (1992) The equality of creditors in international bankruptcy law [in Greek]. Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens/KomotiniGoogle Scholar
  44. Moustaira EN (1995) Forum non conveniens. Equity in the frame of legality [in Greek]. Ant. N. Sakkoulas Publishers, Athens/KomotiniGoogle Scholar
  45. Ochoa Torres E (2013) La cooperación internacional en la legislación Mexicana en materia de concurso mercantil. Tesis realizada para obtener el grado de Doctor en Derecho. Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Facultad de Derecho y Criminologia, Subdirección de Posgrado. Available at:
  46. Olivares-Caminal R (2010) Expedited debt restructuring in Latin America. Warwick School of Law Research Paper Series. Available at:
  47. Perakis EE (2010) Bankruptcy law [in Greek]. Nomiki Bibliothiki, AthensGoogle Scholar
  48. Quintana Adriano EA (2007) El impacto de la quiebra transfronteriza en las legislaciones internas. Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, pp 881–906Google Scholar
  49. Ramsey T, Napier J (2013) Enforcing orders of foreign courts under Chapter 15: In Re Vitro S.A.B. de C.V. Advocate, pp 60–64Google Scholar
  50. Rasmussen RK (1993) A study of the costs and benefits of textualism: the Supreme Court’s bankruptcy’s cases. Wash Univ Law Q 71:535–598Google Scholar
  51. Rodríguez Espitia JJ (2007) Aproximación al derecho concursal colombiano. REVIST@e – Mercatoria 6(2)Google Scholar
  52. Sarra J (2007) Northern lights, Canada’s version of the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. Int Insolv Rev 16:19–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schorr S (2011) Avoidance actions under Chapter 15: was condor correct? Fordham Int Law J 35:350–384Google Scholar
  54. Springer TS (2012) Paved with good intentions: creditors face a new roadblock to recovery in Mexican Bankruptcies. Law Bus Rev Am 18:83–93Google Scholar
  55. Sullivan TA, Warren E, Westbrook JL (1994) The persistence of local legal culture: twenty years of evidence from the Federal Bankruptcy Courts. Harv J Law Public Policy 17:801–865Google Scholar
  56. Vásquez Valencia MV, Ángel Posada AF (2011) La insolvencia transfronteriza: generalidades de un fenómeno económico con impacto jurídico. Criterio Jurídico 11:145–164Google Scholar
  57. Walters A (2017) Modified universalisms & the role of local legal culture in the making of cross-border insolvency law. Available at:
  58. Westbrook JL (1991) Theory and pragmatism in global insolvencies: choice of law and choice of forum. Am Bankruptcy Law J 65:457–490Google Scholar
  59. Westbrook J (2015) Ian Fletcher and the internationalist principle. Nottingham Insolv Bus Law e-J 3:565–572Google Scholar
  60. Wilches Durán RE (2008) Vacíos e inconsistencias estructurales del nuevo régimen de insolvencia empresarial colombiano. Identificación y propuestas de solución. Revista Universitas 117:197–218Google Scholar
  61. Wilches Durán RE (2009) La insolvencia transfronteriza en el derecho colombiano. Revista de Derecho, Universidad del Norte 32:162–198Google Scholar
  62. Wood RJ (2016) The paramountcy principle in bankruptcy and insolvency law: the latest word. Can Bus Law J 58:27–56Google Scholar
  63. Yamauchi KD (2007) Should reciprocity be a part of the UNCITRAL model cross-border insolvency law? Int Insolv Rev 16:145–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zhihe Ji J (2017) Cross-border rehabilitation: an impediment to ship arrest in Singapore? CML Working Paper Series No 17/04. March 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elina Moustaira
    • 1
  1. 1.School of LawNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations