English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The first two decades of law reform related to cross-border bankruptcy are the paired story of the UNCITRAL Model Law (Chapter 15 in the United States) and the EU Insolvency Regulation (the EU Reg). Both seek to create an architecture whereby a court located at a debtor’s center of main interest (COMI) can coordinate the insolvency of a debtor with assets and operations in multiple jurisdictions. The Model Law focuses on the automatic recognition of foreign representatives, and the creation of an ancillary proceeding to administer local assets and claims or transfer them for administration in the main case. The EU Reg creates a structure where the main case, “opened” at the debtor’s COMI, administers the case, while secondary winding up proceedings are opened in jurisdictions where the debtor has an establishment. 3 Both statutes focus on centralizing administrative power in the “main case.” Centralized, or at least coordinated, administration should facilitate rescue (reorganization) where efficient, and allow for a value maximizing liquidation or going-concern sale where necessary. Law reform efforts have paid relatively less attention to how assets should be administered in the main case pending at the debtor’s COMI. Indeed, short of establishing a norm of cooperation with the main case, the same can be said with regard to ancillaries. Governing law has been

Silos: Establishing the Distributional Baseline in Cross-Border Bankruptcies