At the end, the creditors win: pre-insolvency proceedings in France, Belgium and the Netherlands (1807–c1910)

Abstract

In nineteenth-century France, Belgium and the Netherlands, laws imposing pre-insolvency proceedings had different goals. In a first stage, from around 1810 until about 1860, continuity of businesses in distress was not a policy consideration. Rather, legislators purported to give the creditors early control over the insolvent's estate, which was most often liquidated. Debtor-in-possession features were mostly conceived of as a temporary reward for cooperation; lowered requirements for re-entry in the market after the winding-up of their business were another advantage for cooperating debtors. This was the same in the three aforementioned countries. In the 1870s and 1880s, the French and Belgian legislators created new pre-insolvency proceedings, which allowed debtors to keep their assets. In the Netherlands, fixed-term moratoriums prevented such an approach. Yet, also in Belgium and France, the exemption of secured creditors hampered the feasibility of compositions, and a goal of saving firms in financial peril.

Practices and Countermeasures of Cross-border Insolvency Under Chinese Law

“…[8] More than 30 bilateral treaties on mutual legal assistance in civil and commercial matters have been concluded, but China has not enacted any multilateral treaties, such as the Model Law. Among these bilateral treaties, some of them stipulated mutual recognition and enforcement of judgment and ruling, such as treaties concluded with France, Italy, Spain, Bulgaria, Hungary, etc., whereas some of them, although governing assistance in civil and commercial matters, do not include any provisions with respect to mutual recognition and enforcement of judgement and ruling made by courts of both countries 5 , such as treaties with Thailand, Singapore, South Korea etc.. [9] In addition to these countries who have entered into a treaty with China, recognition and insolvency protection made by courts of some other counties which have not concluded any treaties in this field, especially some main trading countries, will be decided by their local law. In the case of "Zhejiang Jianshan Photoelectric co., Ltd", Intermediate People's Court Haining Zhejiang ("Haining Court "hereafter) initiated reorganization (rehabilitation) proceeding 6 upon the application of the Debtor, "Zhejiang Jianshan Photoelectric co., Ltd" ("the debtor" hereafter) in December 2013.…”

“…And the Belt and Road Initiative is a initiative only, rather than a concrete international body or organization, therefore, it is difficult to identify clearly which countries are giving positive response to the Initiative. Moreover, the declaration, although promulgated by the supreme court, is not a formal source of law under the jurisdiction of Chinese court 9 . Furthermore, a joint statement was issued at the 2nd China-ASEAN Justice Forum on 8 th June 2017 in Nanning, the capital of the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, called "Nanning Statement", by which the concept of "presumed reciprocity" was reiterated.…”