Abstract

As globalization continues to expand, with global business integrations and complex multinational corporate structures, cross-border insolvency cases involving debtors and creditors from multiple countries are becoming more common. During the 2008 financial crisis, the insolvencies of major international corporations such as Lehman Brothers brought to light the difficulties in coordinating intricate cross-border legal actions across disjointed legal systems. The differences between national insolvency laws and procedures often impede the efficient administration of such cases. Central to these cases is identifying the debtor’s center of main interests (COMI), which determines the primary jurisdiction governing proceedings. This paper delves into an analysis of emerging legal frameworks and cooperation mechanisms that aim to facilitate cross-border insolvency proceedings and foster coordination among jurisdictions. It sheds light on international initiatives such as the UNCITRAL Model Law, which delineates procedures for recognizing foreign proceedings and determining COMI. Through a comparative analysis of case studies, the paper seeks to evaluate the effectiveness of these frameworks in streamlining cross-border proceedings, mitigating conflicts of law, and enhancing outcomes for stakeholders. Within this exploration, key challenges will be identified, including the unpredictability associated with COMI designations, gaps in harmonized procedures, and limitations in protocols for asset recovery and creditor coordination across borders. Drawing upon these findings, the paper proposes targeted reforms designed to fortify existing mechanisms for cross-border cooperation, ensuring their flexibility to adapt to evolving insolvency scenarios and promoting greater consistency. This study not only provide the research endeavors but also advocates for the advancement of legal harmonization in cross-border insolvency proceedings and the determination of COMI.

Keywords