In the wake of the recent economic downturn, an increasing number of parties to international arbitrations have become subject to insolvency proceedings. The consequences of such intersection of international arbitration and cross-border insolvency are unclear. Transnational inconsistencies and difficulties continue to emerge, and in many ways the debate regarding how to deal with cross-border insolvency questions in arbitration is just beginning.

In light of the increasing number of challenges facing the business world, this critical book explores the inherent collision course between insolvency and international arbitration. Richard Bamforth and Kushal Gandhi lead a team of experts from across the two disciplines to consider the effect of insolvency on arbitration agreements; the developing legal theories on the types of matters which are capable of being arbitrated; and how insolvency impacts on enforcement of arbitral awards.

Comparative Law Yearbook of International Business, Volume 43A Each year, a Special Issue of the Comparative Law Yearbook of International Business is published under the auspices of the Center for International Legal Studies. The 2022 Special Issue addresses the intersection of arbitration and insolvency. This junction has been made all the more topical and intense by the adverse effects of Covid-19 on a broad range of businesses’ finances and supply chains, and by the still growing recourse to arbitration (and other forms of alternative dispute resolution) to resolve business disputes. A diverse pool of contributors gives a broad range of perspectives from Europe (Italy, Lithuania, the United Kingdom), the Middle East (Palestine, UAE), Asia (India), Africa (Zimbabwe), North America (Canada) and public international law on several common issues posed when one or more parties to an arbitration (agreement) are faced with a financial crisis – or vice versa when an overindebted party is expected to resolve claims that it has or faces, not in State courts but before “private” adjudicators. This Special Issue is aimed at bringing to fore the multitude of issues that exist at the convergences of the domains—a step toward better understanding the intricacies and the complexities that arise in different jurisdictions, and how stakeholders react. To highlight just a few of the aspects addressed: the law to be applied by arbitral tribunals in regard to insolvency issues; insolvency arbitrations and tax claims; how the representatives of bankrupt entities may participate in international investment claims; avoidance of transactions and anti-suit injunctions; and the uneasy but unavoidable cohabitation of insolvency and arbitration in the Middle East and North Africa Region.

Insolvency proceedings are often lauded for providing a relatively quick and efficient means of resolving disputes among insolvent debtors and their creditors. Historically, insolvency courts have adhered to the principle of “territoriality,” which posits that bankruptcy proceedings should be brought in the jurisdiction where property or assets of the debtor are located, and that the courts in that forum have jurisdiction and priority over those assets. Based on this principle, in a typical domestic insolvency proceeding, one forum will exercise jurisdiction over the debtor and all of its assets; the adjudicator can thus make decisions that will bind all of the creditors seeking a piece of those assets. The principle of territoriality has become difficult to apply in our increasingly globalized world. Today's multinational corporations operate in multiple countries and hold assets across the globe. Thus a debtor and its affiliate entities may be subject to multiple insolvency proceedings in various jurisdictions. The efficiency gains of a single-forum insolvency process no longer exist, and instead debtors can find themselves in intractable disputes or subject to inconsistent decisions issued by multiple courts. Over the last two decades, there have been various proposals to address the complications inherent in cross-border insolvency proceedings. In the aftermath of the recent financial crisis, which brought a wake of insolvent debtors with massive international presence, the issue has received increased attention. This paper Recently explores several ways in which international arbitration can be used to bring efficiency and consistency to cross-border insolvency proceedings.

When the insolvency proceedings have been filed in a country different from the place of arbitration (cross-border insolvency), the arbitrators face difficult questions, including those referring to the effects of the foreign insolvency proceedings on the arbitration pending. This paper discusses whether cross-border insolvency can be a per se obstacle to international arbitration, and whether there are foreign insolvency laws that can neutralize pending arbitration proceedings. This paper emphasizes the importance of correctly characterizing issues arising in cross-border insolvency/arbitration. The relevance of correct characterization is illustrated by the Vivendi/Elektrim dispute, which led to conflicting decisions in England and Switzerland. This paper also analyzes whether foreign insolvency provisions limiting a tribunal's jurisdiction may be applied as mandatory rules.

The settling of disputes in international trade and in large and technically complex construction projects can hardly be imagined without the institution that is arbitration. Another thing we can be sure about is that insolvency will also remain a part of the lifecycle of business entities within the currently existing economic system. Whereas insolvency proceedings are heavily regulated with little leeway for the parties, the central tenet of arbitration is the autonomy of the parties. Hence this book aims to thoroughly investigate the many legal issues arising in arbitral proceedings when insolvency and arbitration clash. This interaction is increasingly frequent today. Providing much-needed practical guidance derived from a broad and deep theoretical discussion, the book covers such aspects as the following: the effect of insolvency on the arbitration agreement, the arbitration procedure (including a potential mandatory stay of proceedings), the arbitrator’s contract, and the arbitral award; the position of insolvency and arbitration within a legal order; the arbitrability of insolvency(-related) issues and claims; the possibility of determining claims in insolvency via arbitration; the determining of applicable law and conflict-of-laws rules, in particular when insolvency is opened in a different jurisdiction than that of the arbitration; and insolvency in arbitration within the application of the European Insolvency Regulation. After a chapter on the relevant background theories, the two main chapters of the book focus first on general issues that can arise in a domestic situation and second on problems particular to international cases of insolvency in arbitration. The primary domestic perspective is the German one, with abundant additional detail to fully embrace the international relevance of the discussion. The author concludes with a number of considerations, informed by practitioner feedback, discussions throughout the work, and as many arbitration case law examples as possible, for tribunals dealing with insolvency in arbitration. Based on a systematic application of arbitration and insolvency theory, the book provides an all-encompassing and holistic discussion, from before an arbitration is started to after the award has been enforced. In this way, the book provides a ‘one-stop-shop’ for practitioners, both lawyers and arbitrators, helping tribunals to navigate the treacherous waters of insolvency in arbitration.

Insolvency proceedings have increasingly cross-border effects, which are regulated by many international regulations. This book answers the fascinating question of what the underlying principles of international (cross-border) insolvency laws are and how they can be used for the purpose of further harmonising cross-border insolvency law in the EU and beyond.