Recognition of foreign judgments and cross-border insolvencies
In the joined appeals of Rubin v Eurofinance and New Cap Reinsurance v Grant, the Supreme Court held that first, the traditional rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments applied to judgments in insolvency proceedings, and secondly, the act of lodging proof in foreign insolvency proc...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2014
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/1276 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/3229/viewcontent/Lloyd_s_Maritime_and_Commercial_Law_Quarterly___RECOGNITION_OF_FOREIGN_JUDGMENTS_AND_CROSS_BORDER_IN.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | In the joined appeals of Rubin v Eurofinance and New Cap Reinsurance v Grant, the Supreme Court held that first, the traditional rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments applied to judgments in insolvency proceedings, and secondly, the act of lodging proof in foreign insolvency proceedings by a creditor meant that he had submitted to the jurisdiction of the supervising court. This article considers these decisions and suggests that the ruling in Rubin is sound while that in New Cap is unfounded. Further, assuming instead that the law is ripe for reform, this article considers what might be appropriate recognition and enforcement rules for judgments in insolvency proceedings. |
|---|