Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

11 results

  • Anti-Suit Injunctions in Cross-Border Insolvency: A Restatement

  • Look Chan Ho
  • Journal:
    International & Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 52 / Issue 3 / July 2003
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 January 2008, pp. 697-736
    Print publication:
    July 2003

  • In its simplest form, a transnational insolvency involves an insolvency1 proceeding in one country, with creditors located in at least one additional country.2 In the most complex case, it involves multiple proceedings, subsidiaries, affiliated entities, assets, operations, and creditors in dozens of nations. Complex international insolvencies continue to proliferate alongside a burgeoning world-wide free market economy that entails the globalisation of commercial and financial markets.3

  • Pragmatism Rules

  • Look Chan Ho
  • Journal:
    International & Comparative Law Quarterly / Volume 50 / Issue 3 / July 2001
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    17 January 2008, pp. 632-642
    Print publication:
    July 2001

  • Article 6(1) of the Lugano Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters set out in Schedule 3C to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 19821 provides that “[a] person domiciled in a Contracting State may also be sued where he is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled”. The House of Lords in Canada Trust Company v. Stolzenberg (No. 2)2 decided that first, in an action where jurisdiction is asserted under Article 6(1), the relevant standard of proof on the domicile issue is that of a “good arguable case” second, the correct date for determining if the anchor defendant3 is domiciled in England is the date of the issue of proceedings against the anchor defendant; and third, Article 6(1) does not require service on the anchor defendant prior to issue or service of proceedings against other defendants.