The recast of the European Insolvency Regulation, which has been
applicable from 26 June 2017, implements a philosophy of Euro
universalism, according to which in solvency proceedings opened in a
Member State where the debtor has its centre of main in terests (COMI)
should have a universal scope and encompass all the debtor’s assets
situated throughout the EU.
The wording of the Recast Regulation is in tended to comply with the ECJ
case law concerning COMI, such as Interedil, Eurofood, Bank Handlowy or
Mediasucre judgments. Nevertheless, it is now questioned whether the
Recast Regulation strengthens or rather weakens the COMI/registered
office rebuttable presumption and opens the gate for in solvency forum
As far as international company law is concerned, the issue of transfer
of seat as well as forum shopping has been widely discussed. So far the
ECJ has issued a series of judgments in which it has explained the
European freedom of establishment and the cross-border activities of
companies in the internal market.
Similarly, the US Supreme Court has issued several significant
decisions, such as CTP Corp. v. Dynamics Corp. of America, Edgar v. MITE
Corp., and International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, in which the
limits of acceptable forum shopping are better delin eated.
Based on the aforementioned, it may be concluded that European
harmonization measures facilitating cross-border mobility should
additionally assist in achieving predictability and efficiency, as well
as the economic viability and security of the operations under
This contribution analyses and expounds on the lessons that can be
learned from both the ECJ case law as well as US Supreme Court’s
decisions on in ternational company law, in cluding an examin ation of
their effect on in solvency forum shoppin g. There is no doubt that, if
successful, harmonized legislation on these matters would be a great
asset for the internal market.