Abstract
In Chap. 5 the reader was introduced to the concepts of COMI and establishment in this chapter the inconsistencies in the intrepretation of these concepts is further explored.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Guide to Enactment of The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, UN Doc A/CN.9/442 (19 December 1997) as approved by GA Res A/RES/52/158 (1997) (30 January 1998) and amended by GA Res A/RES/68/107 (2013) (16 December 2013) [163].
- 2.
Ackers v Saad Investment Company Ltd. (in liq) (2010) 190 FCR 285, 296 [53].
- 3.
Re British American Insurance Co Ltd., 425 BR 884, 910 (Bankr, SD Fla, 2010).
- 4.
Moore v Australian Equity Investors (2012) 30 ACLC 629, 634 [20].
- 5.
Collins et al., see footnote 158, 1766 [31–108].
- 6.
‘Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases and Global Guidelines for Court to Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases’, presented to the 89th Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute on 23 May 2012 and unanimously approved by the International Insolvency Institute membership at its 12th Annual Conference, Court de Cassation, Paris, 22 June 2012, http://iiiglobal.org/component/jdownloads/viewdownload/36/5897.html, 104.
- 7.
United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Guide to Enactment of The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, UN Doc A/CN.9/442 (19 December 1997) as approved by GA Res A/RES/52/158 (1997) (30 January 1998) and amended by GA Res A/RES/68/107 (2013) (16 December 2013) [139].
- 8.
See Gainsford v Tannenbaum (2012) 293 ALR 699; Williams v Simpson [2011] 2 NZLR 380; Re Loy 380 BR 154, 168 (Bankr, ED Va, 2007).
- 9.
American Law Institute and International Insolvency Institute, see footnote 32, 122.
- 10.
See Re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc 422 BR 404 (Bankr, SD NY, 2010); Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited [2010] 2 BCLC 237; Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Limited [2010] Ch 347, Belmont Park Investments Pty Ltd. v BNY Corporate Trustee Services Ltd. [2012] 1 AC 383.
- 11.
See Re Stanford International Bank Ltd. [2011] Ch 33; Re Stanford International Bank Ltd. (2009) 65 CBR (5th) 4; [2009] QCCA 2475 (17 December 2009).
- 12.
Ackers v Saad Investment Company Ltd. (in liq) (2010) 190 FCR 285, 296 [53]; Re British American Insurance Co Ltd., 425 BR 884, 910 (Bankr, SD Fla, 2010).
- 13.
See above under subheading Time of Recognition of COMI and Establishment.
- 14.
See e.g., Ackers v Saad Investment Company Ltd. (in liq) (2010) 190 FCR 285, 296 [52].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hannan, N. (2017). Present Issues with Concepts of Centre of Main Interest and Establishment. In: Cross-Border Insolvency. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5876-9_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5876-9_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-5875-2
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-5876-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)