Cross-Border Insolvency Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

The breach of public policy is the sole reason in terms of the Regulation that justifies the exceptional refusal of an EU Member State to recognize the main insolvency proceedings and grant their effects. However, the application of ordre public in this connection is more than questionable. It is doubtful whether the EU Member States may in an individual case deny effects to a European regulation as a significant and directly applicable source of European law, which is simultaneously a source of its own law, and whether such approach would not rather be an attempt to evade the regulation, which would be prohibited according to the principles of EU law. Moreover, Article 26 of the Regulation only provides for the procedural ordre public, not the substantive ordre public. The latter could apply in connection with the determination and, especially, the effects of the applicable substantive law of national origin as the lex fori concursus; the ordre public exception could in such case at least theoretically be possible from the substantive-law perspective. However, the substantive-law aspects of the situation are already reflected in Article 5 of the Regulation, which provides for the conflict-of-laws exceptions to Article 4 of the Regulation (and, indeed, in substantially all immunity and special provisions of the Regulation, i.e. Articles 5 to 15 of the Regulation). Consequently, it is more than appropriate to examine the purpose of the rule enshrined in Article 26 of the Regulation, i.e. in which situation the recognition and enforcement would have a result that is principally incompatible with the public policy of the respective Member State. No problems arise if the recognition concerns an individual normative act, i.e. an individual court decision rendered in connection with specific insolvency proceedings, for instance, in connection with a creditor’s claim or the bankrupt’s obligation. It is unclear whether the liquidator’s powers in the main insolvency proceedings can be contested and, for instance, their registration be denied in public registers in terms of Article 21 of the Regulation, such as the Land Register, the Companies Register, etc. We may probably agree that the ordre public exception is not applicable in such cases, as it is not applicable for instance in connection with the debtor’s eligibility as a party to the insolvency proceedings (cf. Article 16(2) of the Regulation, or here in the entire context of the Regulation, i.e. especially, though not exclusively, in terms of Articles 3 and 4 of the Regulation, etc.). Similarly, the ordre public exception is also not applicable if, for instance, the rescue plan relating to the bankrupt’s assets (estate) impairs the creditor’s status compared to the option of liquidating, i.e. selling, the estate. Besides, the rescue plan must still rest on the principles that guarantee due procedure, primarily the following principles: (i) each creditor must obtain at least as much as they would obtain if the estate were liquidated, (ii) further operation of the enterprise must be based on a sufficient estate, so that obligations that arise in the future in connection with the due operation of the business will be satisfied, (iii) the absolute priority rule is observed, which requires that the priority satisfaction rights are honored, or that the payment of benefits to lower classes of creditors before satisfaction of the higher classes of creditors is contingent on the latter’s consent, and (iv) the rescue plan for the bankrupt’s enterprise is subject to the court’s consent, and such consent must be withheld if the plan is contrary to laws or good morals, provided that it is approved by the majority of creditors during a separate vote within the individual classes of creditors.