Abstract
This article focuses on a general methodological problem highlighted in the specific context of cross-border insolvencies: under what conditions can legal rules and principles embedded in one specific legal context be transferred to another? Using the recent Nortel decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the author will ask whether the Court would have upset the institutional balance when filling the regulatory gap as to a lis pendens rule in the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) by reference to the Brussels I regime. The article will then analyse in detail the coherency of the EIR’s rules for assigning the debtor's assets to partial insolvency estates; in particular, whether considerations peculiar to conflicts of laws adequately express the purposes and interests underlying insolvency-related asset allocation. By tracing potential consequences that may arise from legal transplants lacking full functional equivalence, the article will show that the concept of allocation as currently outlined in Article 2(g) EIR lacks comprehensiveness and functional coherence. From this analysis, the author will develop a differing concept of allocation in line with the general structure of the Insolvency Regulation and with a special focus on claims and intellectual property rights.
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.
