[GA - PASSED] International Bankruptcy Protocol

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cretox

Somehow, Palpatine has returned
TNP Nation
Cretox State
Discord
Cretox#0125
ga.jpg

International Bankruptcy Protocol
Category: Regulation | Area of Effect: Legal Reform
Proposed by: Separatist Peoples | Onsite Topic

Abhorring the lack of international comity requirements for insolvent entities in a world increasingly reliant on globalized commerce;

Fearing that such a lack may permit debtors to evade creditors by shifting assets across international borders, both hindering commerce and increasing the transactional cost of commercial and consumer bargaining;

Believing that bankruptcy is a tool to both protect debtors from insolvency and permanent barriers to obtaining consumer credit and creditors from losing any opportunity for remuneration;

Asserting that no loss of sovereignty truly occurs by extending the courtesy of comity to fellow members of the World Assembly, as all states benefit equally from their extension;

The World Assembly enacts the following:
  1. “Bankruptcy” is a legal process overseen by a court or trustee that reorganizes or discharges debt meant to satisfy creditor claims while protecting debtors from extended insolvency and compounding debt.

  2. A “foreign representative” is a person or persons authorized to appear on behalf of a nongovernmental debtor or creditor to represent the debtor or creditor’s interests in a foreign bankruptcy proceeding.

  3. Member states must establish a judicial or administrative procedure to aid foreign representatives in recognizing and enforcing the applicable foreign bankruptcy laws over fiscal assets within the territorial jurisdiction of that member state.

  4. Member states may require a reasonable analysis of the debtor’s ties to the host jurisdiction and to the foreign jurisdiction to determine whether extending bankruptcy comity is appropriate.

  5. A reasonable analysis may inquire into:
    1. The proportion of assets within the host jurisdiction as compared to those in the foreign jurisdiction;

    2. The length of time those assets have been within the host jurisdiction; and

    3. Any other factor which the member state feels relevant and that facilitates fair and efficient bankruptcy procedures in conformity with the implicit goals of this resolution.
  6. Notwithstanding foreign bankruptcy law, member states must:
    1. Enforce a mandatory stay of any creditor claims against the debtor’s assets within member state jurisdiction pending conclusion of the bankruptcy process if member states have extended comity under Clause 3, except for government liens meant to collect unpaid taxes; and

    2. Supply court records pertaining to ongoing proceedings and past bankruptcies on request by a party or government involved in the instant bankruptcy proceeding.
  7. Member states may charge foreign representatives reasonable administrative or court fees, commensurate with domestic fees for similar work, when enforcing foreign bankruptcy comity claims.

  8. No member state may treat the failure to obtain bankruptcy comity as having a preclusive effect on later domestic claims by either creditors or debtors.

  9. Member states may enforce a time limit on the number of separate bankruptcy comity claims a court may enforce for a debtor.

  10. Nothing in this resolution mandates the extension of comity to non-member states.
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations and NPA personnel will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!

[TR][TD] For [/TD][TD] Against [/TD][TD] Abstain [/TD][TD] Present [/TD][/TR][TR][TD]20[/TD][TD]2[/TD][TD]0[/TD][TD]0[/TD][/TR]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IFV
As commerce further internationalises, “International Bankruptcy Protocol” sets up a robust system to ensure that international-scale bankruptcies are handled fairly and efficiently. The proposal elegantly eliminates avenues for abuse by setting up a “reasonable analysis” standard. Using these and other tools along with its narrow scope, the proposal ensures it will not unduly violate national sovereignty. It furthermore prevents member states from discriminating against foreign representatives in bankruptcy cases through unfairly high fees or interference in ongoing procedures.

For these reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends voting For the at-vote General Assembly proposal, “International Bankruptcy Protocol”.
 
Last edited:
For. People should not be able to evade creditors across arbitrary boundaries, and I find the proposal's provisions in that regard to be completely reasonable, especially considering the very narrow scope. Clauses 4 and 5 ("reasonable analysis") further minimize any possible negative impact on nations' sovereignty when it comes to bankruptcy; additionally, it's the assets of private individuals in question here, not those of any state.
 
Against, as the resolution does not provide explicitly for exceptions such as medical or student debt (as in say the US) and cultural differences over perceptions of bankruptcy between countries. I consider point (4) inadequate for this purpose.
 
I have two issues with this resolution:

1) The use of the term "fiscal assets" in Clause 3. While some firms may have a large proportion of their assets as fiscal assets such as manufacturing firms or internatioally trading firms, many firms including banks, non-banking financial entities, and traders of commercial paper who have a lot of financial assets but those are simply traded, not spent or earned. That makes them not fiscal. Seeing a lot of such financial firms may go under in distress, the use of the word fiscal may make them immune to parts of the resolution. However, I do not see this as big enough to vote against.

2) The language of this resolution applies to bankruptcies that where dissolution or transfer of assets is needed to pay back financial debt. This is an analogue of USC Chapter 13 bankruptcy for corporations. However, many more bankruptcies are simply partial restructuring, the USC Chapter 11 bankruptcy. This is not a dealbreaker either. I just feel it could have been tweaked a bit to be more general.

For
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top