Abstract
Choice of law in cross-border insolvency is gaining increased attention, not just by lowly academics but by policymakers who actually matter. I argue it is time to bring some normative guidance to the burgeoning reform efforts. At the highest level of theoretical purity, universalism seems to have (rightly) captured the biggest following. But it has been scaled back by what I call “second-order” considerations of pragmatics to its lesser, modified form. I take that retrenchment as necessary and note how it has been deployed through a carveout-based regime of subject-specific exceptions from lex fori concursus. Given that lay of the land, I suggest a “third-order” normative framework for moving beyond discrete subject matter carveouts and instead propose a reorientation toward a normative principle to justify the necessary carveouts of modified universalism: actual, defensive litigant reliance should be what warrants departure from COMI insolvency law. I contend that this new framework will serve a desirable cabining effect on territorialism by reserving the application of non-COMI law for circumstances when it is truly “required.”
Submitted Version (
Free)
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
