Readers may be familiar with the continuing debates over universalism (one court and one insolvency law) vs. territorialism (many courts and many insolvency laws) that have dominated discussions of cross-border insolvencies in recent years.[1] Realizing that true universalism is an ideal that is unlikely to come to pass in the real world, universalists have generally embraced a modified universalism that acknowledges circumstances that make it proper and (practically and politically) necessary to recognize and protect certain local interests.

[1]Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to implement the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency formulated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). Part of the reason for needing a U.S. implementation of the Model Law was in recognition of the mutli-national presences of many entities, and thus the need for multi-national solutions for insolvencies of these entities.[2]

Brazilian Federal Law No. 12.846/13 (the “Anti-Corruption Law”), which became effective on Jan. 29, 2014, establishes the civil and administrative liability of legal entities for acts that are harmful to the public administration, and applies to both domestic and foreign entities.

German corporate bankruptcy law will soon undergo a major reform when the proposed Gesetz zur weiteren Erleichterung der Sanierung von Unternehmen (ESUG, or the Company Restructuring Facilitation Act) passes through legislation.