Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Groups of Companies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Insolvency Law

  • 792 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 89.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 119.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Almaskari (2016), pp. 2–3.

  2. 2.

    Gropper (2015), p. 364.

  3. 3.

    Mevorach (2007), p. 179.

  4. 4.

    Schmidt (2015), p. 125.

  5. 5.

    About the interaction of corporate law and corporate bankruptcy, scholars had already discussed years ago, see Skeel (2015), p. 1021.

  6. 6.

    Wouters and Raykin (2013), p. 387.

  7. 7.

    Avi-Yonah (2003), pp. 8–9.

  8. 8.

    See about that, specifically regarding the European Union Member States’ insolvency laws, Merlini (2016), pp. 120–121.

  9. 9.

    Mevorach (2014), p. 227.

  10. 10.

    Mevorach (2010).

  11. 11.

    See Mevorach (2018), p. 10: “Only where the insolvency process imitates the commercial reality of integration and allows the group or its relevant parts to be kept together is it possible to restructure the group as a whole or apply other group-wide solutions that can maximize value.”

  12. 12.

    Gopalan and Guihot (2015), p. 1225.

  13. 13.

    Sarra (2009), p. 547.

  14. 14.

    As Pottow (2015), p. 348, points out: “universalism is agnostic to substantive consolidation”.

  15. 15.

    Mevorach (2018), p. 227.

  16. 16.

    Clark (2014), pp. 113–114.

  17. 17.

    Zhang (2017), pp. 339–341.

  18. 18.

    Zhang (2017), p. 340.

  19. 19.

    Baird and Rasmussen (2002), p. 758.

  20. 20.

    LoPucki (2005), p. 152.

  21. 21.

    Gropper (2015), p. 364.

  22. 22.

    Bufford (2005), p. 105.

  23. 23.

    Miller (2012), p. 185.

  24. 24.

    11 U.S.C. § 109(a) requires that a business entity that files a bankruptcy petition have a domicile (place of incorporation or formation), a place of business or property in the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1408 sets forth the venue provisions.

  25. 25.

    Gropper (2012), p. 212.

  26. 26.

    Wessels et al. (2017), p. 344.

  27. 27.

    Bailey (2015), p. 344.

  28. 28.

    See supra, Sect. 4.8.2.1.

  29. 29.

    García Gutiérrez (2015), pp. 215–217 and note 57.

  30. 30.

    García Gutiérrez (2015), p. 216.

  31. 31.

    Bianco and Marcucci (2011), pp. 90–91.

  32. 32.

    See Bianco and Marcucci (2011), pp. 92–93, who mention that the Parmalat crisis led to the Marzano law and the Alitalia crisis led to the enactment of a different version of the Marzano law.

  33. 33.

    Panzani (2016), p. 1154.

  34. 34.

    Wessels et al. (2017), p. 345.

  35. 35.

    CJEU 15 December 2011, C-191/10 ECLI:EU:C:2011:838.

  36. 36.

    Paulus (2011), pp. 36–37.

  37. 37.

    Deutscher Bundestag Drucksache 18/407 of 30 January 2014. As conceptual approach, it was the main influence for Chapter V of the European Recast Insolvency Regulation (2015), see Wessels et al. (2017), p. 346 note 1152.

  38. 38.

    Hermann (2015), p. 394.

  39. 39.

    See Madaus (2018), p. 4: “Der Gesetzgeber entschied sich – in Berlin wie in Brüssel – für eine behutsame Regelung der Konzerninsolvenz.”

  40. 40.

    See Madaus (2018), p. 5: “Es ist eine Berliner Schöpfung, die als solche auch auf der europäischen Ebene eingeführt und schließlich in den Art. 61 bis 77 EuInsVO verankert wurde.”

  41. 41.

    García Gutiérrez (2015), p. 206.

  42. 42.

    Sánchez-Calero and Fuentes Naharro (2011), pp. 51–52.

  43. 43.

    Wessels et al. (2017), p. 346.

  44. 44.

    McCormack (2016), p. 113.

  45. 45.

    CJEU Judgment of 15.12.2011—C-191/10.

  46. 46.

    McCormack (2016), p. 113.

  47. 47.

    See Siemon and Frind (2013a), p. 1: “Das Konzerninsolvenzrecht im nationalen und im europäischen Bereich befindet sich in einer Sackgasse”.

  48. 48.

    de Vette (2011), p. 216.

  49. 49.

    Reumers (2013), p. 554.

  50. 50.

    Reumers (2016), p. 225.

  51. 51.

    Bertini (2016).

  52. 52.

    Van Galen (2016), p. 67.

  53. 53.

    But see Wimmer et al. (2016), pp. 175–176: “Einen an der Konzernleitungsmacht oder head office functions orientierten “Konzern-COMI” wird die Verordnung auch in ihrer Neufassung nicht kennen. Auch bzw. erst recht hat der Verordnungsgeber davon abgesehen, Einheitsverfahren zu schaffen, in deren Rahmen in Überwindung der im Rastelli-Urteil entwickelten Grundsätze die Insolvenzabwicklung von konzernangehörigen Unternehmen zusammengefasst werden könnte, die ihre Interessenmittelpunkten in unterschiedlichen Mitgliedstaaten haben.”

  54. 54.

    Mevorach (2018), p. 234.

  55. 55.

    Madaus (2015), p. 232.

  56. 56.

    Siemon and Frind (2013b), p. 61; Siemon and Frind (2013a), p. 1.

  57. 57.

    Thole and Dueñas (2015), p. 216.

  58. 58.

    Queirolo and Dominelli (2017), p. 178.

  59. 59.

    Paulus (2007), pp. 819–820.

  60. 60.

    Merlini (2016), p. 128.

  61. 61.

    Winkler (2008), p. 369.

  62. 62.

    Latella (2014), p. 479.

  63. 63.

    Zhang (2017), p. 344.

  64. 64.

    Interesting is the comment of Smaliukas (2015), p. 381, that the rebuttable presumption about COMI of the subsidiary [of a group of companies] shall often be rebutted before the Lithuanian court with the result that this court will refuse to open in Lithuania the main insolvency proceeding, therefore, he argues, it is the new rules on the secondary proceedings that will become even more important to effectively deal with the insolvency of a Lithuanian subsidiary. If we consider this argument well grounded, we can imagine that the situation will be the same in other countries too, where similar politico-economic conditions reign and whose law, including insolvency law, was transplanted from other laws.

  65. 65.

    Zhang (2017), p. 345.

  66. 66.

    Rutstein and Bloomberg (2010), p. 156.

  67. 67.

    Mevorach (2015), p. 216.

  68. 68.

    Mevorach (2011a), pp. 537–543.

  69. 69.

    Mevorach (2008), pp. 440–445.

  70. 70.

    United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law, Part three: Treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency (6 December 2010).

  71. 71.

    Mevorach (2015), p. 217.

  72. 72.

    Mevorach (2011b), p. 105.

  73. 73.

    Ziegel (2002), p. 376.

  74. 74.

    The UNCITRAL’s Working Group that works on Insolvency issues.

  75. 75.

    Hannan (2015), p. 237.

  76. 76.

    Hannan (2015), p. 238.

  77. 77.

    Hannan (2015), p. 239.

  78. 78.

    Babcock & Wilcox Canada Ltd, Re (2000), 5 BLR (3d) 75, 18 CBR (4th) 157 (Ont SC).

  79. 79.

    Ouatu (2014), p. 101.

  80. 80.

    Obviously this could never happen in case the court was of a civil law country. This sort of direct cooperation between courts is not allowed.

  81. 81.

    Ouatu (2014), pp. 106–109.

  82. 82.

    Ho (2011), p. 395.

  83. 83.

    Morris et al. (2018), p. 134.

  84. 84.

    Ho (2011), p. 395.

  85. 85.

    Re Stanford International Bank [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch); [2009] BPIR 1157.

  86. 86.

    Ouatu (2014), p. 108.

  87. 87.

    Ouatu (2014), p. 119.

  88. 88.

    Not happy about it, Ho (2009), pp. 537–542.

  89. 89.

    Eurofood IFSC Ltd, C-341/04, [2006] ECR I-3854.

  90. 90.

    Ouatu (2014), p. 120.

  91. 91.

    Re Stanford International Bank [2010] EWCA Civ 137; [2011] Ch 33.

  92. 92.

    Clark and Goldstein (2011), p. 521.

  93. 93.

    Westbrook (2015), p. 498.

  94. 94.

    Re Nortel Networks Corp. [2015] ONSC 2987 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct); Re Nortel Networks Inc., et al., Debtors 532 B.R. 494 (2015).

  95. 95.

    Pottow (2015), p. 333.

  96. 96.

    11 U.S.C. § 101 et seq.

  97. 97.

    The Monitor acts as a fiduciary to the Canadian estate. Among other duties, the Monitor is responsible for communicating with creditors regarding the claims process.

  98. 98.

    As Pottow (2015), p. 334, points out, Nortel was global in reach, but if anyone tried to assess the COMI of the corporate group, it would likely have been Canada.

  99. 99.

    Pottow (2015), p. 335.

  100. 100.

    The business and intellectual property sales had raised approximately $9.0 billion, of which approximately $7.3 remained in the “lockbox”, to be distributed among the creditors, see Peacock (2015), p. 544.

  101. 101.

    In re Nortel Networks, Inc., No. 09-10138, 2013 WL 1385271 (Bankr. D. Del. Apr. 3, 2013), aff’d 737 F.3d 265 (3d Cir. 2013); Nortel Networks Corp. (Re), 09-CL-7950, 2013 ONSC 1757 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J. Apr. 3, 2013).

  102. 102.

    Peacock (2015), pp. 544–545. As it is stated, this first cross-border insolvency trial commenced on May 12, 2014 and continued for 6 weeks. The two courts “simultaneously heard testimony of tens of witnesses and admitted into evidence over 2,000 exhibits and designations from numerous depositions.” The parties submitted post-trial briefs of more than 1000 pages and two full days of closing arguments were made in September 2014.

  103. 103.

    In re Nortel Networks, Inc., No. 09-10138, 2015 WL 2374351 (Bankr. D. Del. May 12, 2015); Nortel Networks Corp. (Re), 09-CL-7950, 2015 ONSC 2987 (Can. Ont. Sup. Ct. J. May 12, 2015).

  104. 104.

    Pottow (2015), p. 340.

  105. 105.

    Interestingly, it is stated in the Plan that “[t]he Plan recognizes the corporate integrity of each Debtor and, therefore, Allowed Claims against a particular Debtor will be satisfied only from the assets of that Debtor’s bankruptcy estate (with the exception of Allowed Claims against NNCC, which will be satisfied out of the estate of the Consolidated Debtors in accordance with the substantive consolidation of NNI and NNCC pursuant to Section 6.2 (Substantive Consolidation of NNI and NNCC) of the Plan)”. See for the U.S. Court, In re Nortel Networks Inc., et al., Case no. 09-10138 (KG), U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, Doc. 17502, Dec. 1, 2016. NNCC is Nortel Networks Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation; NNI is Nortel Networks Inc., a Delaware corporation.

  106. 106.

    According to a database maintained by UCLA Law School Prof. Lynn M. LoPucki, see Hals (2017).

  107. 107.

    Ajinderpal and Ng (2018), p. 6.

  108. 108.

    Menjucq and Dammann (2008), pp. 145–158.

  109. 109.

    Gropper (2011), p. 576.

  110. 110.

    Wessels (2014), p. 76.

  111. 111.

    Hirte (2008), p. 218.

  112. 112.

    Pottow (2011), p. 584.

  113. 113.

    Pottow (2014), p. 206.

  114. 114.

    Mooney (2014), pp. 121–122.

  115. 115.

    Re Collins & Aitkins Corp. Group, [2005] EWCH 1754 (Ch).

  116. 116.

    Janger (2014), pp. 180–201 (183)

  117. 117.

    Re Collins & Aikman Corp. Group, [2006] EWHC 1343 (Ch) at [15].

  118. 118.

    Gropper (2011), p. 576.

  119. 119.

    Madaus (2017), pp. 223–241.

  120. 120.

    Re Collins & Aikman Corp. Group, [2006] EWHC 1343 (Ch) at [31].

References

  • 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. 40

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Avi-Yonah RS (2003) National regulation of multinational enterprises: an essay on comity, extraterritoriality, and harmonization. Columbia J Transnatl Law 42:5–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Bailey E (2015) The insolvency of groups of companies in English law. Int Insolv Law Rev:344–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Baird D, Rasmussen R (2002) The end of bankruptcy. Stanford Law Rev 55:751–789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 81–102

    Google Scholar 

  • Bufford SL (2005) Global venue controls are coming: a reply to Professor LoPucki. Am Bankruptcy Law J 79:105–141

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark LM (2014) Managing distribution to claimants in cross-border enterprise group insolvency. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:111–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark LM, Goldstein K (2011) Sacred cows: how to care for secured creditors’ rights in cross-border bankruptcies. Texas Int Law J 46:513–558

    Google Scholar 

  • de Vette EMF (2011) Multinational enterprise groups in insolvency: how should the European Union act? Utrecht Law Rev 7:216–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GarcĂ­a GutiĂ©rrez L (2015) Reflexiones aceca de la regulaciĂłn de la insolvencia de los groupos internacionales de sociedades en la UniĂłn Europea. Revista JurĂ­dica de la Universidad Autonoma de Madrid 31:205–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopalan S, Guihot M (2015) Recognition and enforcement in cross-border insolvency law: a proposal for judicial gap-filling. Vanderbilt J Transnatl Law 48:1225–1284

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper AL (2011) The payment of priority claims in cross-border insolvency cases. Texas Int Law J 46:559–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper AL (2012) The arbitration of cross-border insolvencies. Am Bankruptcy Law J 86:201–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Gropper AL (2015) United States approaches to the insolvency of enterprise groups. Int Insolv Law Rev:364–378

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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

  • Hermann O (2015) The corporate group in insolvency – today and tomorrow, chances and risks. Int Insolv Law Rev:383–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirte H (2008) Towards a framework for the regulation of corporate groups’ insolvencies. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 5(2):213–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:537–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho LC (2011) Misunderstanding the model law: Re Stanford International Bank. Butterworths J Int Bank Financ Law:395–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Janger EJ (2014) Silos: establishing the distributional baseline in cross-border bankruptcies. Brooklyn J Corp Finan Commer Law 9(183):180–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Latella D (2014) The “COMI” concept in the revision of the European insolvency regulation. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 11:479–494

    Google Scholar 

  • LoPucki LM (2005) Universalism unravels. Am Bankruptcy Law J 79:143–167

    Google Scholar 

  • Madaus S (2015) Insolvency proceedings for corporate groups under the new insolvency regulation. Int Insolv Law Rev 6:232–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Madaus S (2017) Die Zusicherung nach Art. 36 EuInsVO – Das Ende virtueller Sekundärinsolvenzverfahren? In: Festschrift fur Klaus Pannen, Munchen, pp 223–241

    Google Scholar 

  • Madaus S (2018) Das Konzerninsolvenzrecht – die Ziele des Gesetzgebers. Neue Zeitschrift fĂĽr Insolvenzrecht-Beilage:4–6

    Google Scholar 

  • McCormack G (2016) Groups of companies and the “recast” European insolvency regulation. In: Parry R, Omar PJ (eds) Reimagining rescue. INSOL Europe, Nottingham, pp 109–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Menjucq M, Dammann R (2008) Regulation No. 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings: facing the companies group phenomenon. Bus Law Int 9:145–158

    Google Scholar 

  • 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:119–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevorach I (2007) Appropriate treatment of corporate groups in insolvency: a universal view. Eur Bus Organ Law Rev 8:179–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mevorach I (2008) The “Home Country” of a multinational enterprise group facing insolvency. Int Comp Law Q 57:427–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mevorach I (2010) Towards a consensus on the treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency. Cardozo J Int Comp Law 18:359–423

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 12:517–557

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 103–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevorach I (2014) Cross-border insolvency of enterprise groups: the choice of law challenge. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 9:226–249

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevorach I (2015) Beyond the search for certainty: addressing the cross-border resolution gap. Brooklyn J Corp Financ Commer Law 10:183–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Mevorach I (2018) The future of cross-border insolvency. Overcoming biases and closing gaps. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller RW (2012) Economic integration: an American solution to the multinational enterprise group conundrum. Richmond J Global Law Bus 11:185–237

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:120–151

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 127–153

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Panzani L (2016) La disciplina della crisi di gruppo tra proposte di riforma e modelli internazionali. Il Fallimento 10:1153–1162

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulus C (2007) Group insolvencies – some thoughts about new approaches. Texas Int Law J 42:819–830

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 29–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Peacock LL (2015) A tale of two courts: the novel cross-border bankruptcy trial. Am Bankruptcy Inst Law Rev 23:543–570

    Google Scholar 

  • Pottow JAE (2011) A new role for secondary proceedings in international bankruptcies. Texas Int Law J 46:579–599

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:202–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Pottow JAE (2015) Two cheers for universalism: Nortel’s Nifty Novelty. Annu Rev Insolv Law:333–366

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 117–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Reumers M (2013) Cooperation between liquidators and courts in insolvency proceedings of related companies under the proposed revised EIR. Eur Company Financ Law Rev 10:554–593

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reumers M (2016) What is in a name? Group coordination or consolidation plan – what is allowed under the EIR recast? Int Insolv Rev 25:225–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutstein M, Bloomberg L (2010) A wind blows through an English Brothel. Corp Rescue Insolv 4:156

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 47–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarra J (2009) Oversight and financing of cross-border business enterprise group insolvency proceedings. Texas Int Law J 44:547–576

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 125–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Siemon K, Frind F (2013a) Der Konzern in der Insolvenz - Zur Ăśberwindung des Dominoeffekts in der (internationalen) Konzerninsolvenz. Neue Zeitschrift fĂĽr Insolvenzrecht:1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 22:61–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Skeel D (2015) Rediscovering corporate governance in bankruptcy. Temple Law Rev 87:1021–1034

    Google Scholar 

  • Smaliukas A (2015) Insolvency of group of companies in the scope of the new EIR: Lithuanian perspective. Int Insolv Law Rev:379–382

    Google Scholar 

  • Thole C, Dueñas M (2015) Some observations on the new group coordination procedure of the reformed European insolvency regulation. Int Insolv Rev 24:214–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Galen R (2016) The recast insolvency regulation and groups of companies. In: Parry R, Omar PJ (eds) Reimagining rescue. INSOL Europe, Nottingham, pp 53–67

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 9:63–110

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Westbrook JL (2015) Nortel: the cross-border insolvency case of the century. Buttersworth J Int Bank Financ Law 30:498

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimmer K, Bornemann A, Lienau MD (2016) Die Neufassung der EuInsVO. Luchterhand Verlag, Köln

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler M (2008) From whipped cream to multibillion Euro financial collapse: the European regulation on transnational insolvency in action. Berkeley J Int Law 26:352–371

    Google Scholar 

  • Wouters N, Raykin A (2013) Corporate group cross-border insolvencies between the United States and European Union: legal & economic developments. Emory Bankruptcy Dev J 29:387–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang D (2017) Reconsidering procedural consolidation for multinational corporate groups in the context of the recast European insovency regulation. Int Insolv Rev 26:332–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ziegel J (2002) Corporate groups and cross-border insolvencies: a Canada – United States perspective. Fordham J Corp Financ Law 7:367–393

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece

    Elina Moustaira

Authors
  1. Elina Moustaira
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Moustaira, E. (2019). Groups of Companies. In: International Insolvency Law. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04450-3_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-04450-3_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-04449-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-04450-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation