Abstract
AbstractIn 1997, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law adopted a Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency. Since then, many countries have passed it or a revised version of it. In many cases, the adopting country wrestled with the issue of whether to include a reciprocity provision in its version. Some have included such a provision, others have not. The inclusion of a reciprocity provision is not consistent. This article discusses the concept and argues that a reciprocity provision could be detrimental to the operation of the Model Law and prejudicial to the parties; especially those in the country whose legislation includes such a provision. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
