Maritime Cross-Border Insolvency and Harmonisation

  • Erik Göretzlehner


The two previous chapters show that the insolvency laws as well as the maritime laws of Germany, England & Wales and the USA do not fall widely apart, but even minor differences can cause confusion and uncertainty for both practitioners and academics. Especially the treatment of the insolvent debtor, the restructuring tools available, and the legal theories behind the maritime security right of maritime lien are the main sources of legal conflict. Many harmonisation efforts have been enacted to reconcile these differences. In the context of international insolvency, the EU Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency are the most effective and pragmatic harmonisation instruments. Such clear guidelines and regulations are still missing for stipulations on maritime liens and the conflict of laws that these liens are causing. It became evident in the previous chapter that the single state’s catalogues of maritime claims, which are secured by the security interest of maritime liens, are very different and the acceptance and recognition of foreign maritime liens in domestic proceedings varies strongly, with England & Wales taking the most restrictive and the USA the most ship-creditor friendly approach.


  1. Alwang, M. (1996). Steering the most appropriate course between admiralty and insolvency: Why an international insolvency treaty should recognize the primacy of admiralty law over maritime assets. Fordham Law Review, 64, 2613–2646.Google Scholar
  2. Ang, B. (2016, November 29). Arrest and insolvency: The legal tensions between two regimes - The Singapore experience with cross-border insolvency. Singapore: Publications Supreme Court. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  3. Berlingieri, G. (2014). Defaulting Ship-owners and the regulation of their insolvency status. Comité Maritime Internationale. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from,27129,112932,00.html
  4. Bork, R. (2012). Rescuing companies in England and Germany. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brambusch, J. (2014, March 19). Schiffsfonds tricksen bei Insolvenzen. Capital - Wirtschaft ist Gesellschaft. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  6. Calliess, G.-P., & Hoffmann, H. (2009). Judicial services for global commerce - Made in Germany? German Law Journal, 10, 115–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Couwenberg, O., & Lubben, S. (2015). Corporate bankruptcy tourists. The Business Lawyer, 70, 719–749.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, M. (2016). Cross-border insolvency and admiralty: A middle path of reciprocal comity. CMI Year Book, 2015, 196–215.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, C. (2016). Report on the work of the International Working Group on cross-border insolvency. CMI Year Book, 2015, 216–218.Google Scholar
  10. DeNatale, A., & Mechling, C. (2013, March 4). Shipping companies find a safe harbor in U.S. bankruptcy courts. New York Law Journal. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  11. Derrington, S., & Turner, J. (2007). The law and practice of admiralty matter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. El Borai, R. (2006). Cross-border corporate insolvency: a modest proposal for an enhanced international approach. London: Centre for Commercial Law Studies - Queen Mary, University of London.Google Scholar
  13. Ende, M. (1988). Adrift on a sea of red Ink: The status of maritime liens in bankruptcy. Fordham International Law Journal, (11), 573–591.Google Scholar
  14. Falzone, A. (2014). Two households, both alike in dignity: The internatioal Feud between admiralty and bankruptcy. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 39, 1175–1206.Google Scholar
  15. Fehrenbach, M. (2014). Haupt- und Sekundärinsolvenzverfahren. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frege, M., Keller, U., & Riedel, E. (2015). Insolvenzrecht (8th ed.). München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  17. Goodman, P. (2016, November 1). Lessons learned from Hanjin Shipping’s bankruptcy. Law, 360. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  18. Gorman, G. (2014/2015). Reorganization of maritime entities under U.S. bankruptcy laws. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 27, 97–152.Google Scholar
  19. Janger, E. (2010/2011). Reciprocal comity. Texas International Law Journal, 46, 441–458.Google Scholar
  20. Ji, J. (2017, March). Cross-border rehabilitation: An impediment to ship arrest in Singapore? National University of Singapore - Centre for Maritime Law. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  21. Joos, B. (2012). Anmerkungen zum Beschluss des LG Bremen, Beschl. v. 14.08.2011. Entscheidungen zum Wirtschaftsrecht, 387–388.Google Scholar
  22. Kirchhof, H.-P., Eidenmüller, H., & Stürner, R. (Eds.). (2013). Münchener Kommentar zur Insolvenzordnung (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). München: C. H. Beck.Google Scholar
  23. LoPucki, L. (1998/1999). Cooperation in international bankruptcy: A post-universalist approach. Cornell Law Review, 84, 696–762.Google Scholar
  24. Mason, R. (2012). Cross-border insolvency and legal transnationalisation. International Insolvency Review, 21, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McCullough, R. (2007/2008). Law Wars: The battle between bankruptcy and admiralty. Tulane Maritime Law Journal, 32, 457–491.Google Scholar
  26. Moss, G., Fletcher, I., & Isaacs, S. (Eds.). (2009). The EC regulation on insolvency proceedings - a commentary and annotated guide (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Paulus, C. (2006/2007). Group insolvencies – some thoughts about new approaches. Texas International Law Journal, 42, 819–830.Google Scholar
  28. Peck, S. (2013). Navigating the Murky waters of admiralty and bankruptcy law. Tulane Law Review, 87, 955–994.Google Scholar
  29. Ragan, A. (2010/2011). COMI strikes a discordante note: Why U.S. Courts are not in complete Harmony despite Chapter 15 Directives. Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal, 27, 117–168.Google Scholar
  30. Rasmussen, R. (1999/2000). Resolving transnational insolvencies through private ordering. Michigan Law Review, 98, 2252–2275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Seelinger, J., & Dähnert, A. (2012). International jurisdiction for schemes of arrangement. International Corporate Rescue, 9, 243–248.Google Scholar
  32. Seitz, G. (2009). Interaction between admiralty and bankruptcy law: effects of globalization and recurrent tensions. Tulane Law Review, 83, 1339–1391.Google Scholar
  33. Smid, S. (2009). Internationales Insolvenzrecht. Berlin: De Gruyter Recht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Soars, J. (2016). Cross-border insolvency and shipping - a practical guide. Comité Maritime Internationale. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  35. Tetley, W., & Wilkins, R. (1998). Maritime liens and claims (2nd ed.). Montreal: International Shipping Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Thomas, D. R. (1980). Maritime liens. London: Stevenson & Sons.Google Scholar
  37. Uhlrenbruck, W. (Ed.). (2015). Insolvenzordnung (14th ed.). München: Franz Vahlen.Google Scholar
  38. UNCITRAL. (2009). Practice guide on cross-border insolvency cooperation. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  39. UNCTAD. (2015). Review of maritime transport. New York.Google Scholar
  40. Weil, D. (1996). Charting a course through dangerous Waters: A Landlubber’s introduction to the rules of maritime indebtedness in the context of a maritime bankruptcy. University of San Francisco Maritime Law Journal, 9, 195–223.Google Scholar
  41. Weiss, J. (2010/2011). Tax claims in transnational insolvencies: A “Revenue Rule” approach. Virginia Tax Review, 30, 261–326.Google Scholar
  42. Wessels, B. (2008). Judicial cooperation in cross-border insolvency cases. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  43. Williams, C. (2015). The COMIngs and goings of COMI - centre of main interests for shipping companies. National Law Review. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from
  44. Wolf, S., & Hartenstein, O. (2012, September 12). Are vessels protected from arrest during preliminary insolvency proceedings? International Law Office. Retrieved June 10, 2018 from

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erik Göretzlehner
    • 1
  1. 1.Frankfurt am MainGermany

Personalised recommendations