Advertisement

Groups of Companies

  • Elina Moustaira
Chapter

Abstract

A multinational corporate group is an enterprise that operates in more than one country through more entities—a parent company and few or many subsidiary companies—which have separate legal personality.

References

  1. 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
  2. Almaskari BJ (2016) Towards legal certainty: European cross-border insolvency law and Multinational Corporate Groups. Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Leicester School of Law. Available at https://lra.le.ac.uk/bitstream/2381/39163/1/2016AlmaskariBJPhD.pdf
  3. Avi-Yonah RS (2003) National regulation of multinational enterprises: an essay on comity, extraterritoriality, and harmonization. Columbia J Transnatl Law 42:5–34Google Scholar
  4. Bailey E (2015) The insolvency of groups of companies in English law. Int Insolv Law Rev:344–363Google Scholar
  5. Baird D, Rasmussen R (2002) The end of bankruptcy. Stanford Law Rev 55:751–789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bertini R (2016) L’insolvenza del gruppo alla luce del Regolamento (UE) N. 848/2015. Cammino Diritto. Rivista di informazione giuridica. https://www.camminodiritto.it/public/pdfarticoli/1637_9-2016.pdf
  7. Bianco M, Marcucci M (2011) Groups and groups’ bankruptcy discipline in Italy. In: Insolvency and Cross-border Groups (ed) UNCITRAL Recommendations for a European Perspective? Banca d’Italia Eurosistema. Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della Consulenza Legale, 69, pp 81–102Google Scholar
  8. Bufford SL (2005) Global venue controls are coming: a reply to Professor LoPucki. Am Bankruptcy Law J 79:105–141Google Scholar
  9. Clark LM (2014) Managing distribution to claimants in cross-border enterprise group insolvency. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:111–119Google Scholar
  10. Clark LM, Goldstein K (2011) Sacred cows: how to care for secured creditors’ rights in cross-border bankruptcies. Texas Int Law J 46:513–558Google Scholar
  11. de Vette EMF (2011) Multinational enterprise groups in insolvency: how should the European Union act? Utrecht Law Rev 7:216–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. García Gutiérrez L (2015) Reflexiones aceca de la regulación de la insolvencia de los groupos internacionales de sociedades en la Unión Europea. Revista Jurídica de la Universidad Autonoma de Madrid 31:205–226Google Scholar
  13. Gopalan S, Guihot M (2015) Recognition and enforcement in cross-border insolvency law: a proposal for judicial gap-filling. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 48:1225–1284Google Scholar
  14. Gropper AL (2011) The payment of priority claims in cross-border insolvency cases. Texas Int Law J 46:559–577Google Scholar
  15. Gropper AL (2012) The arbitration of cross-border insolvencies. Am Bankruptcy Law J 86:201–242Google Scholar
  16. Gropper AL (2015) United States approaches to the insolvency of enterprise groups. Int Insolv Law Rev:364–378Google Scholar
  17. Hals T (2017) Nortel cleared to end bankruptcy, distribute $7 billion to creditors. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-nortelworks-bankruptcy/nortel-cleared-to-end-bankruptcy-distribute-7-billion-to-creditors-idUSKBN1582TO
  18. 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 https://api.research-repository.uwa.edu.au/portalfiles/portal/5338528/Hannan_Neil_2015.pdf
  19. Hermann O (2015) The corporate group in insolvency – today and tomorrow, chances and risks. Int Insolv Law Rev:383–395Google Scholar
  20. Hirte H (2008) Towards a framework for the regulation of corporate groups’ insolvencies. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 5(2):213–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ho LC (2009) Cross-border fraud and cross-border insolvency: proving COMI and seeking recognition under the UK Model Law. J Int Bank Finance Law 9:537–542Google Scholar
  22. Ho LC (2011) Misunderstanding the model law: Re Stanford International Bank. Butterworths J Int Bank Financ Law:395–404Google Scholar
  23. Janger EJ (2014) Silos: establishing the distributional baseline in cross-border bankruptcies. Brooklyn J Corp Finan Commer Law 9(183):180–201Google Scholar
  24. Latella D (2014) The “COMI” concept in the revision of the European insolvency regulation. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 11:479–494Google Scholar
  25. LoPucki LM (2005) Universalism unravels. Am Bankruptcy Law J 79:143–167Google Scholar
  26. Madaus S (2015) Insolvency proceedings for corporate groups under the new insolvency regulation. Int Insolv Law Rev 6:232–247Google Scholar
  27. Madaus S (2017) Die Zusicherung nach Art. 36 EuInsVO – Das Ende virtueller Sekundärinsolvenzverfahren? In: Festschrift fur Klaus Pannen, Munchen, pp 223–241Google Scholar
  28. Madaus S (2018) Das Konzerninsolvenzrecht – die Ziele des Gesetzgebers. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenzrecht-Beilage:4–6Google Scholar
  29. McCormack G (2016) Groups of companies and the “recast” European insolvency regulation. In: Parry R, Omar PJ (eds) Reimagining rescue. INSOL Europe, Nottingham, pp 109–117Google Scholar
  30. Menjucq M, Dammann R (2008) Regulation No. 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings: facing the companies group phenomenon. Bus Law Int 9:145–158Google Scholar
  31. Merlini A (2016) Reorganisation and liquidation of groups of companies: creditors’ protection vs. going concern maximisation, the European dilemma, or simply a misunderstanding in light of the new EU Insolvency Regulation No 2015/848. Int Insolv Law Rev:119–135Google Scholar
  32. Mevorach I (2007) Appropriate treatment of corporate groups in insolvency: a universal view. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 8:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mevorach I (2008) The “Home Country” of a multinational enterprise group facing insolvency. Int Comp Law Q 57:427–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mevorach I (2010) Towards a consensus on the treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency. Cardozo J Int Comp Law 18:359–423Google Scholar
  35. Mevorach I (2011a) 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
  36. Mevorach I (2011b) Multinational enterprise groups in insolvency: a comment on UNCITRAL’s proposals and future prospects within the EU. In: Insolvency and Cross-border Groups (ed) UNCITRAL recommendations for a European perspective? Banca d’Italia Eurosistema. Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della Consulenza Legale, 69, pp 103–108Google Scholar
  37. Mevorach I (2014) Cross-border insolvency of enterprise groups: the choice of law challenge. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:226–249Google Scholar
  38. Mevorach I (2015) Beyond the search for certainty: addressing the cross-border resolution gap. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 10:183–223Google Scholar
  39. Mevorach I (2018) The future of cross-border insolvency. Overcoming biases and closing gaps. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller RW (2012) Economic integration: an American solution to the multinational enterprise group conundrum. Richmond J Global Law Bus 11:185–237Google Scholar
  41. Mooney CW Jr (2014) Harmonizing choice-of-law rules for international insolvency cases: virtual territoriality, virtual universalism, and the problem of local interests. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:120–151Google Scholar
  42. Morris HP, Moss G, Mucciarelli FM, Paulus CG (2018) Cross-border insolvencies after Brexit: views from the United Kingdom and Continental Europe. In: Fitzgerald OE, Lein E (eds) Complexity’s embrace – the international law implications of Brexit. Centre for International Governance & Innovation Press, Waterloo, pp 127–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ouatu M (2014) Modified universalism for cross-border insolvencies: does it work in practice? A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Laws in the Faculty of Graduate & Postdoctoral Studies. The University of British Columbia. Available at https://open.library.ubc.ca/collections/ubctheses/24/items/1.0103613
  44. Panzani L (2016) La disciplina della crisi di gruppo tra proposte di riforma e modelli internazionali. Il Fallimento 10:1153–1162Google Scholar
  45. Paulus C (2007) Group insolvencies – some thoughts about new approaches. Texas Int Law J 42:819–830Google Scholar
  46. Paulus CG (2011) Ways towards a group insolvency law. In: Insolvency and Cross-border Groups (ed) UNCITRAL recommendations for a European perspective? Banca d’Italia Eurosistema. Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della Consulenza Legale, 69, pp 29–46Google Scholar
  47. Peacock LL (2015) A tale of two courts: the novel cross-border bankruptcy trial. Am Bankruptcy Inst Law Rev 23:543–570Google Scholar
  48. Pottow JAE (2011) A new role for secondary proceedings in international bankruptcies. Texas Int Law J 46:579–599Google Scholar
  49. Pottow JAE (2014) Beyond carve-outs and toward reliance: a normative framework for cross-border insolvency choice of law. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:202–225Google Scholar
  50. Pottow JAE (2015) Two cheers for universalism: Nortel’s Nifty Novelty. Annu Rev Insolv Law:333–366Google Scholar
  51. Queirolo I, Dominelli S (2017) Cooperation between authorities and insolvency office holders. In: Queirolo I, Dominelli S (eds) European and national perspectives on the application of the European insolvency regulation. Aracne editrice, Roma, pp 117–185Google Scholar
  52. Reumers M (2013) Cooperation between liquidators and courts in insolvency proceedings of related companies under the proposed revised EIR. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 10:554–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reumers M (2016) What is in a name? Group coordination or consolidation plan – what is allowed under the EIR recast? Int Insolv Rev 25:225–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rutstein M, Bloomberg L (2010) A wind blows through an English Brothel. Corp Rescue Insolv 4:156Google Scholar
  55. Sánchez-Calero J, Fuentes Naharro M (2011) Grupos y concurso: las recomendaciones de UNCITRAL y el Derecho español. In: Insolvency and Cross-border Groups (ed) UNCITRAL Recommendations for a European Perspective? Banca d’Italia Eurosistema. Quaderni di Ricerca Giuridica della Consulenza Legale, 69, pp 47–80Google Scholar
  56. Sarra J (2009) Oversight and financing of cross-border business enterprise group insolvency proceedings. Texas Int Law J 44:547–576Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt K (2015) Interaction of corporate law and insolvency law: German experience and international background. In: Parry R, Omar PJ (eds) International insolvency law: future perspectives. INSOL Europe, Nottingham, pp 125–147Google Scholar
  58. Siemon K, Frind F (2013a) Der Konzern in der Insolvenz - Zur Überwindung des Dominoeffekts in der (internationalen) Konzerninsolvenz. Neue Zeitschrift für Insolvenzrecht:1–11Google Scholar
  59. Siemon K, Frind F (2013b) Groups of companies in insolvency: a German perspective overcoming the domino effect in an (international) group insolvency. Int Insolv Rev 22:61–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Skeel D (2015) Rediscovering corporate governance in bankruptcy. Temple Law Rev 87:1021–1034Google Scholar
  61. Smaliukas A (2015) Insolvency of group of companies in the scope of the new EIR: Lithuanian perspective. Int Insolv Law Rev:379–382Google Scholar
  62. Thole C, Dueñas M (2015) Some observations on the new group coordination procedure of the reformed European insolvency regulation. Int Insolv Rev 24:214–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Van Galen R (2016) The recast insolvency regulation and groups of companies. In: Parry R, Omar PJ (eds) Reimagining rescue. INSOL Europe, Nottingham, pp 53–67Google Scholar
  64. Wessels B (2014) Contracting out of secondary insolvency proceedings: the main liquidator’s undertaking in the meaning of Article 18 in the proposal to amend the EU insolvency regulation. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:63–110Google Scholar
  65. Wessels B, Madaus S, Boon GI (2017) Rescue of business in insolvency law. Instrument of the European Law Institute. Available at: https://www.iiiglobal.org/sites/default/files/Rescue%20of%20Business%20in%20Insolvency%20Law.PDF
  66. Westbrook JL (2015) Nortel: the cross-border insolvency case of the century. Buttersworth J Int Bank Financ Law 30:498Google Scholar
  67. Wimmer K, Bornemann A, Lienau MD (2016) Die Neufassung der EuInsVO. Luchterhand Verlag, KölnGoogle Scholar
  68. Winkler M (2008) From whipped cream to multibillion Euro financial collapse: the European regulation on transnational insolvency in action. Berkeley J Int Law 26:352–371Google Scholar
  69. Wouters N, Raykin A (2013) Corporate group cross-border insolvencies between the United States and European Union: legal & economic developments. Emory Bankruptcy Dev J 29:387–423Google Scholar
  70. Zhang D (2017) Reconsidering procedural consolidation for multinational corporate groups in the context of the recast European insovency regulation. Int Insolv Rev 26:332–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ziegel J (2002) Corporate groups and cross-border insolvencies: a Canada – United States perspective. Fordham J Corp Financ Law 7:367–393Google Scholar

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