英语论文网

I. INTRODUCTION
In its simplest form, a transnational insolvency2 involves an insolvency proceeding 代写留学生论文in one country, with creditors located in at least one additional country.3 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.
Creditors in any insolvency have every incentive to pursue their claims in fora not subject to collective insolvency proceedings5 in order to gain priority over other creditors. Creditors of an insolvent corporation which conducts business on a transnational basis often have the opportunity to pursue their claims against the corporation in their local courts even though the corporation is already subject to some formal insolvency proceeding in another jurisdiction, say, the jurisdiction of its incorporation. Permitting these creditors to bypass the collective insolvency proceeding promotes piecemeal distribution of the insolvent's assets and hampers orderly management of the insolvency or reorganisation efforts, to the detriment of all creditors as a group,6 https://www.51lunwen.org/liuxuelunwendx/while some creditors 'unjustly gain a first-come/first-served preference'.7 Jurisdictions that allow local assets to be used to satisfy local creditors in local proceedings with little regard for proceedings or parties elsewhere are pejoratively termed as 'grab rule' jurisdictions.8 For '[i]t is obvious that ... it would be better in nine cases out of ten that all settlements of insolvent debtors with their creditors should be made in a single proceeding, and generally at a single place'.9 One instrument an English court may use to achieve this result is to invoke its equitable power to restrain the creditors from proceeding in a foreign 'grab rule' court,10 a 'remedy, which in more recent times has become known as an 'anti-suit injunction”.11
Apart from international insolvency, a corollary of global economy is the rise of parallel international litigations involving (substantially) the same cause of action between the same parties.12 International forum shopping is a popular and expensive 'legal pastime',13 resulting in clashes of jurisdictions and inconsistent judgements. One instrument an English court may use to regulate parallel proceedings and forum shopping is to issue an ant-suit injunction restraining a party from commencing or continuing as a claimant in foreign proceedings.14 In fact the use of anti-suit injunctions is nowadays a familiar phenomenon in international commercial litigation.
One could therefore see two parallels between international commercial litigation and international insolvency litigation. First, just as claimants in international commercial litigation forum shop to 'seek a forum with favourable substantive or procedural rules or sympathetic local population',15 claimants in international insolvency litigation forum shop to seek a 'grab rule' jurisdiction. Secondly, both types of forum shopping carry undesirable baggage and English court may use ant-suit injunctions to repel the undesirable baggage.
However, there the parallels end. For while one may say with reasonable confidence that English law on anti-suit injunctions in interna本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。