{"id":456,"date":"2019-03-27T09:42:44","date_gmt":"2019-03-27T09:42:44","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2019-06-11T09:46:00","modified_gmt":"2019-06-11T09:46:00","slug":"centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php","title":{"rendered":"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In dealing with\ncross-border corporate insolvency under the Insolvency Regulation 2000 (Council\nRegulation (EC) 1346\/2000), the Centre of Main Interests (COMI) is used in\ndetermining where a main insolvency procedure can be opened. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critically analyze\nthe challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member\nstates. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. Introduction<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The vital aim of the European Community\u2019s formation was to craft an internal market which would enhance the development of the economies in the Member States.[1]<\/a> This augmented the cross-border insolvency proceedings due to the rise in the companies\u2019 transnational activities.[2]<\/a> Cross-border insolvency deals with circumstances where the liabilities and assets of a debtor are situated in more than one jurisdiction and becomes subject to insolvency<\/a>.[3]<\/a> The Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) 1346\/2000) governs such proceedings, containing rules concerning jurisdiction and conflict of law, in the effort to offer uniformity in the European Union (EU) for proceedings of insolvency through reciprocal recognition.[4]<\/a> Centre of Main Interests (COMI) which is at the heart of the Regulation thus has utmost importance since it is the prime foundation for the initiation of the main proceedings and in determining the relevant law to be applied.[5]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The interpretation of Insolvency Regulation 2000 in relation to\ninsolvency proceedings has been subject to widespread controversies since its\nenforcement on 31st<\/sup> May 2002.[6]<\/a>\nEssentially, the term \u2018COMI\u2019 has been the prime focus of such debates, which\ndecides the jurisdiction of opening main proceedings, and consequently the law\nvalid to be applied to the said proceedings according to Article 4(1) of the\nRegulation.[7]<\/a>\nFor this reason, after thorough considerations and the prevailing complexities,\na new Regulation (EU) 2015\/848 was adopted which came into force on 26June\n2017, but applying solely to relevant\ninsolvency proceedings<\/em>.[8]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where proceedings of insolvency in the United States are governed by\nfederal law[9]<\/a>,\nthe system for insolvency proceedings in EU Member States is substantially\ndifferent.[10]<\/a>\nThe legal regime of Europe has thus received preference over other states due\nto its advantages of better cost, creditors\u2019 protection and speedy pace of\nproceedings.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Given the strict nature of insolvency regimes in France, Germany and\nUnited States; companies have particularly preferred England\u2019s insolvency regime,\nas it allows flexibility in the proceedings.[12]<\/a>\nHowever, the notion of COMI has been a subject of extensive criticisms due to\nits triggering interpretation pliability and instigating inconsistencies.[13]<\/a>\nAmong other issues, the instigation of COMI migration by the debtors to have an\nauspicious\/better legal footing in dealing with their insolvency matters\npresented many challenges within the EU Member States.[14]<\/a>\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This essay aims to critically evaluate the problems and the practical\nissues that the EU Member States have faced due to the notion of the COMI provided\nin the EU Regulation No. 1346\/2000. In order to properly analyse the challenges\nencountered by the EU Member States; discussion will focus on the old\nRegulation and will subsequently delve into the discussion of new Recast\nRegulation and analyse what the Recast Regulation has brought to the table in\nrelation to the notion of COMI.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The Notion of COMI<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

It is very important to understand the concept of COMI in order to apprehend\nthe issues and challenges faced by the EU Member States. COMI is a concept\nwhich is independent from Member States\u2019 national laws and carries an\nautonomous standing.[15]<\/a>\nThe EU Regulation 1346\/2000, Article 3 (1) states that the place which has the\ndebtor\u2019s centre of main interests gives jurisdiction to the court of the\nconcerned Member State to initiate main insolvency proceedings.[16]<\/a>\nFurthermore, if there is no proof of contradiction, COMI is presumed to be the\nplace where the company has its registered\noffice<\/em>.[17]<\/a>\nAlthough the Regulation does not define COMI, it is stated in Recital 13 of the\nRegulation that the location\/setting where a debtor carries out administration\nin pursuance of its interests on a consistent basis and \u201cascertainable by third parties\u201d[18]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>\nshould be the COMI of the debtor.[19]<\/a>\nDue to the vague nature of the COMI concept and the absence of its definition; determining\nthe place of the COMI has thus been quite problematic\/challenging in more than\none capacity.[20]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.1 Eurofood IFSC Ltd<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

In order to properly interpret Article 3 of the Regulation, the\nEuropean Court of Justice (ECJ) was called upon to offer clarification in the Eurofood<\/em>[21]<\/a>\ncase. The ECJ\u2019s decision offered its insight and stipulated that where a company\ndoes not conduct its activities in a EU Member State where it has its\nregistered headquarters, or is merely a mailbox company; the said aforementioned\npresumption can be rebutted as provided in Article 3 (1) of the Regulation.[22]<\/a>\nThe decision also clarified the necessity of third parties\u2019 ascertainment to\nmake sure that there is a legal certainty pertaining to the identification of\nthe court which holds the jurisdiction to initiate main proceedings of\ninsolvency.[23]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whilst considering Article 4 (1) of the Regulation, further light\nwas shed on the significance of the foreseeability and legal certainty, given\nthat the determination of the court possessing jurisdiction would lead to\nspecification\/identification of the applicable law.[24]<\/a>  Thus, one can deduce that the place where the\nmain activity is carried out does not ineludibly determine the COMI, but the\nadministration of the interests of the debtor on a day to day basis coupled\nwith the ascertainment of third parties (particularly creditors) should be\nconsidered.[25]<\/a>\nHowever, it has been argued that creditors (third parties) may have differing views\nin relation to such ascertainment and may create a challenging scenario. Nevertheless,\nit is suggested that creditors with the highest worth claims should be\nconsidered in the such concerned cases. [26]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. The Issue Pertaining to the Determination of COMI<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Against the aforementioned background, for the determination of the\nplace of administration, the COMI cannot merely be identified by the place of\nbusiness activity or the location of creditors as the matter is quite\nmultifactorial.[27]<\/a>\nAlthough the notion of COMI has been substantially significant for the\napplication\/interpretation due to its central role in the Regulation, the\nconcept is intrinsically ambiguous.[28]<\/a>\nWhere the intention of the COMI has on one hand been to depict the debtor\u2019s\nmain economic activity[29]<\/a>,\nthe concept on the other hand presumes that the location of the debtor\u2019s institution\nwhere it has its registered office, is the place of COMI.[30]<\/a>\nThe character of the notion is thus very open, which although has offered flexibility,\nconcomitantly it has also proven to be a substantial weakness of the Regulation,\nas the practical implementation of the COMI concept demands evaluation and\nassessment of the foregoing situation\/circumstances of the debtor.[31]<\/a>\nThis therefore can consume a considerable amount of time, and result in\ndifferent courts concluding and reaching differing decisions.[32]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another legal predicament which surfaced due to the concept of COMI,\nwas referred to ECJ in the case of Interedil[33]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>\nin relation to whether the interpretation of the COMI ought to be in accordance\nwith the national law or under the sphere of EU law. It was however provided\nthat the COMI of the debtor ought to be put to interpretation under the EU law\nand should be independent of the national law.[34]<\/a>\nArguably, this could be due to the fact that EU laws concerning insolvency have\nprecedence over national laws in EU Member States, especially in situations\nwhere there is conflict between domestic laws of a member state and the\nRegulation.[35]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Further, the Regulation stipulates no requirement regarding the time\nperiod which would render the possibility to effectively institute COMI at a\nnew place.[36]<\/a>\nHowever, COMI demands the new location to be of a genuine nature, where the\nmain interests are administered on a\nregular basis.[37]<\/strong><\/a> <\/em>Nonetheless, to\nestablish COMI there is no clarity on what defines regular basis.[38]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subsequently, another challenge posed has been the fact that the old\nRegulation does not determine as to whether the court originally consulted reserves\nthe jurisdiction, where prior to the decision of the court, the debtor migrates\nits COMI to a new location subsequent to the request of opening the main\nproceedings.[39]<\/a>\nThis has therefore in practice instigated many confusions and manipulations,\nwhere the debtors would run to the courts to shift their COMI to a different\nMember State and thus distort legal certainty.[40]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Groups of Companies – The Issue of Legal Certainty \u2013 Rebuttal of the Presumption and Unclear Terms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

One of the key and important aspect which has been a challenge in\napplying the Regulation has been dealing with groups of companies which has its\nsubsidiaries in more than one different Member States.[41]<\/a>\nThe issue has been quite significant due to the complications presented in the\npast, given that cross-border insolvencies relating to groups of companies have\nnot been provided for in the said Regulation.[42]<\/a>\nThe allocation of jurisdiction and the applicable law in such cases therefore\nhas not been an easy task under the scope of the Regulation.[43]<\/a>\nIt is usually desirable for international group of companies to have its\ninsolvency proceedings to be initiated in one jurisdiction and be subject to\nthe same applicable law. The COMI issue pertaining to such companies is\ntherefore such that when the registered office presumption is put into effect,\nthe different companies\u2019 main insolvency proceedings linked to the group could\nbe initiated in different Member States.[44]<\/a>\nFor instance, where the subsidiary is situated in Ireland and the parent\ncompany in Italy, the main insolvency proceedings would be opened for the\nsubsidiary in Ireland and for the parent company in Italy.[45]<\/a>\nThereby, it can be argued that the Regulation has not been clear in providing descriptive\ncircumstances where the said presumption could be rebutted allowing the\nsubsidiary\u2019s COMI to be placed in the parent company\u2019s country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Eurofood <\/em>judgement on\n2 May 2006 as discussed in section 2 in relation to the aforementioned issue however\nprovided some guidance, but, the said solution received widespread criticism.[46]<\/a>\nIt has been argued that the approach of the ECJ left the issue open-ended and\nvery general in providing sufficient circumstances when the said Regulation\u2019s\npresumption could be rebutted; hence triggering unpredictability in legal\ncertainty where different companies\u2019 place of COMI linked to one group are\ndetermined.[47]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition, the secondary proceedings for groups of companies\nproved to make the setting more complex.[48]<\/a>\nWhere the subsidiary\u2019s COMI would be determined at the place of the parent\ncompany, the possibility of initiating secondary proceedings at the place of\nthe subsidiary still existed as the subsidiary could be considered to possess\nan establishment at the State where its operations are administered.[49]<\/a>\nThe approach of the ECJ and the Regulation are both argued to have lacked in\nrecognising the issues in relation to the groups of companies, which are often\nincorporated in different states due to company\u2019s operations and consideration\nof tax laxation.[50]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Regulation\u2019s Recital 13 referring to regular basis of \u2018administration\nof interests\u2019, triggers more obscurity by adding more factors to the concept of\nCOMI other than the registered office criterion.[51]<\/a>\nThe \u2018administration of interests\u2019 could signify\/entail activities of sale,\nfunctions of the head office or regular manufacturing. As far as the \u2018regular\nbasis\u2019 point is concerned, in practice, an activity which is considered regular\nat a certain time; might discontinue to be regular at another time.[52]<\/a>\nFinally, the \u2018ascertainment by third parties\u2019 has been open-ended and does not\nprovide for who the third parties are.[53]<\/a>\nEven though interpretations have pointed to creditors of the debtor,[54]<\/a>\nit is uncertain as to why Recital 13 uses the term \u2018third parties\u2019 rather than mere\ncreditors. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. The Abuse of COMI – COMI Migration and Forum Shopping<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Where it is clearly expounded in Recital 4 of the Regulation\n1346\/2000, that forum shopping is necessary to be eluded to ensure adequate\nfunction of the internal market; it can be argued that COMI has itself provided\nroom for forum shopping because of COMI migration.[55]<\/a>\nNumerous cases have served as examples which show the favourable outcomes for\ncompanies where the law to be applicable changed after the relocation of the COMI.\nWhere COMI migration can be favourable and is deemed to be fair in certain legitimate\ncircumstances to overcome common-pool issues; however, its abuse can instigate\nsevere problems when it comes to practice.[56]<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The presumption under Article 3 (1) that the place of registered\noffice is the debtor\u2019s COMI, has been used and abused by numerous companies to\nmigrate its COMI through the transfer of its registered office.[57]<\/a>\nLikewise, companies have also transferred their COMI without transferring their\nregistered office, which is also referred to as the isolated COMI relocation.[58]<\/a>\nThese routes have widely been adopted by companies in the European Union. The\nfollowing two cases serve as good examples for analysis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.1 The Case of Schefenacker AG<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Given the flexible nature of English insolvency law, Schefenacker AG<\/em> established in Germany, <\/em>a group manufacturer after facing\nsevere financial troubles in 2006 resolved to shift its COMI to England.[59]<\/a>\nResultantly, a restructuring plan was adopted to move the COMI, thus forming an\nEnglish limited company in England.[60]<\/a>\nThe migration of Schefenacker<\/em>\u2019s COMI proved\nsuccessful and allowed the company to evade major liquidation.[61]<\/a>\nThe example of Schefenacker <\/em>illustrates\nhow the COMI could successfully be shifted via relocation of the registered\noffice to save the company and its assets. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

5.2 The Case of The Pin Group AG S.A.<\/em><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Pin Group, one of the largest mail service companies providing\nits services in Germany, was registered in Luxembourg, faced economic\ndifficulties in 2007 after a minimum wage criterion was introduced by the\nGovernment of Germany.[62]<\/a>\nA centralised executive committee was created by the Group which started\nholding its meetings in Germany (Cologne), managing all the substantial\ndecisions of the business.[63]<\/a>\nThe court of Germany concluded the COMI to be in Germany, since third parties\nincluding creditors could ascertain that the material decisions of The Pin\nGroup were settled in Germany and not at Luxembourg which was the registered\noffice.[64]<\/a>\nThis is a perfect example of an isolated migration of the COMI; carried out\nwithout moving the registered office, with the modification of mere certain\nfacts. This however, was criticized as abusive by many critics due to the fact\nthat the action was taken after the group faced financial difficulties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Law shopping or forum shopping via synthetic interpretation of the\nCOMI to change the location to a new jurisdiction can cause serious problems\nfor stakeholders and the creditors.[65]<\/a>\nGiven that the transfer of COMI does not only change the jurisdiction but also\nchanges the law to be applied can be very harmful in terms of legal certainty.[66]<\/a>\nFor example, in the BenQ Mobile Holdings<\/em>[67]<\/a>\ncase, the decision of the location of COMI made a considerable difference for\nthe creditors which financially amounted to millions of euros.[68]<\/a>\nThis was due to the decision as to whether the COMI of the company existed in\nthe Netherlands or Germany.[69]<\/a>\nIn terms of legal certainty, one can argue that it is unfair to the creditors\nwhere they can be without their consent stripped off of their rights, via a\nplain and swift transfer of the COMI. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As the transfer of COMI changes the law which is to be applied, it\ntherefore does not only affect the creditors but also other stakeholders who\nmay encounter the same distasteful problems.[70]<\/a>\nFor instance, the liability of directors in certain jurisdictions does not only\ndepend on tort law and company law but also relies on bankruptcy law which can\nresult in severe liabilities for the directors. Hence, it is imperative that\nCOMI is appropriately stable and foreseeable, so that there is certainty and\nprovision of sufficient legal protection. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Insolvency Regulation 2000 stipulates that once a Member State\u2019s\ncourt has decided to initiate insolvency proceedings, such decision is to be\nacknowledged across the community,[71]<\/a>\nconditional to \u201can insignificant public policy\ncaveat\u201d<\/em>.[72]<\/a>\nGiven that the notion of COMI has been quite vague, there has always been a\nchance of auspiciously justifying the COMI at a location which is desirable to\nthe parties involved in insolvency proceedings.[73]<\/a>\nThere is a tendency that the court would most likely agree to this, as the\nCOMI\u2019s concept has been quite ambiguous. This problem leads to a situation\nwhere the concerned parties would run to the courts to open insolvency\nproceedings in the jurisdiction which would be most desirable to them. The\n\u2018first to file\u2019 has urged the concerned parties to rush to courts for this\npurpose and has badly impacted the aspect of legal certainty.[74]<\/a>\nKeeping this in mind, the parties to insolvency proceedings have thus arguably effectively\nabused the notion of COMI for their personal benefits. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To alleviate problems, it is argued that the concept of COMI should\nbe replaced with the Registered office notion which would help in easing up the\nunderlying problems. However, against this argument, there are many improbable\naspects attached to the Registered office notion and whether it would improve\nthe cross-border insolvency proceedings is quite debatable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. COMI and the New EU Regulation No. 848\/2015 (Recast)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

After 10 years of adoption of the discussed EU Regulation No.\n1346\/2000; given the widespread criticism, challenges and economic\ninstabilities which the European Member States faced due to uncertainties of\ninterpretation and other loopholes; it was realized by the European Commission\nthat there was a need to reform the current Regulation.[75]<\/a>\nFollowing a public consultation in June 2012 and numerous other discussions, a\nnew EU Regulation 848\/20.5.2015 was approved by the Parliament in May 2015.[76]<\/a>\nThe new Regulation came into force on 26 June 2017[77]<\/a>\nand established\/maintained in territory one and numerous registers of\ninsolvency on 26 June 2018.[78]<\/a>\nBy 26 June 2019, the European Commission will inaugurate a decentralised system\npertaining to the insolvency registers\u2019 interconnection.[79]<\/a>\nThe new Regulation will not have a retrospective effect, meaning that it would\nnot apply to the insolvency proceedings which have already been initiated under\nRegulation No. 1346\/2000. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.1 What does the new Regulation No. (848\/2015) bring to the Table to reduce the challenges?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The basis of the Recast Regulation upholds the same foundation as\nthat of the EU Regulation 1346\/2000, however it presents some changes and\nmoderations which are aimed to suit the practical challenges of the EU\ninsolvency proceedings.[80]<\/a>\nThe new Regulation intends to bring about tangible individualization and\nimprove the COMI concept \u2013 location of the debtor, targeting to avoid and fight\nthe undesired forum shopping.[81]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Considering the judgements of the ECJ cases Interedil, Susanne Schreiber Staubitz<\/em>, Rastelli<\/em> and Eurofood<\/em>;\nthe Recast Regulation in Article 3 (1) states that \u201cthe centre of main interests shall be the place where the debtor\nconducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis and which is\nascertainable by third parties\u201d. [82]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>\nThe new Regulation presents the presumption that the COMI of the debtors for\nlegal entities concurs with the location of the registered office, if there is an\nabsence or lack of proof to contradict the same.[83]<\/a>\nThe rebuttal of the said presumption can be made by the national court under a\nthorough and complete assessment of the entire objective rudiments and keeping\nin mind that the centre of the place is the actual heart of the management,\ncontrol and economic interests of the indebted company, as recognized by third\nparties.[84]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another interesting point added to Article 3 (1) of the new\nRegulation is that the said presumption is only to be applied where \u201cthe registered office has not been moved to\nanother Member State within the 3-month period prior to the request for the\nopening of insolvency proceedings.”[85]<\/strong><\/a><\/em>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6.1.1 Going Deep<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

There are differing opinions on whether the new Recast Regulation\nhas brought something tangible to the table or not. By closely assessing and\nevaluating the new Regulation, it shows that the Recast Regulation has\ndelivered a rational revision of the old one.[86]<\/a>\nThe new Regulation has considered the EU jurisprudence, with the aim to deliver\na rather effectual design by casing a relatively better scope of\ninterpretation, with the potential to appropriately determine the COMI and prevent\nthe practice of forum shopping to stop its abuse.[87]<\/a>\nThe addition of the 3-month period in Article 3 (new Regulation) for this\npurpose seems to be a step in the right direction. However, at the same time,\nit is argued by many scholars that the new Regulation has not hugely modified\nthe approach and the foundation laid down by the old Regulation; as it does not\nper-say provide new or novel ground-breaking solutions.[88]<\/a>\nNonetheless, the new Regulation seems to have widened and fortified the\nstructure of collaboration and recognition, as framed by the old Regulation for\nInsolvency.[89]<\/a>\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The COMI concept as defined by the old Regulation has been quite\nrigid and intangible in nature, triggering numerous legal and practical issues.\nSurprisingly, even though COMI is a fundamental feature of the Regulation, it\nhas been found to have fundamental weaknesses and flaws. Due to this reason,\nthe EU Member States have faced numerous challenges in initiating and carrying\nout the cross-border insolvency proceedings under the old Regulation. Among\nothers, as highlighted in the essay; the basic problems have revolved around the\nissues of legal uncertainty, the unclear\/lack of guidance for the rebuttal of\nCOMI registered office presumption, forum shopping, and most importantly the\nabsence of recognition of the modern corporate groups. This thus has led to the\ncreation of a very complex setting for cross-border insolvency proceedings in\nthe Member States and impelled many legal and academic discussions to hunt for\npractical solutions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Where the Recast Regulation is deemed to have introduced thoughtful\namendments by aiming to enhance predictability and legal certainty throughout\nthe EU, yet some argue that the changes are not intrinsically revolutionary.\nSuggestions have been proposed by many scholars in relation to the subject, and\nrightfully so, since there is always room for an improvement. However, only\ntime will decide as to how effective the new changes, as incorporated in the\nRecast Regulation will realistically prove to be in making the process of transnational\ninsolvency proceedings uncomplicated and abuse-free. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bibliography<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Primary Sources<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Cases<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

BenQ Mobile Holdings\n B.V.<\/em> [2008] B.C.C. 489<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eurofood IFSC Ltd<\/em>, Re\n (C-341\/04) [2006] ECR I-3813, [2006] 3 WLR 309<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hans Brochier Ltd v. Exner<\/em> [2006] EWHC 2594 (Ch) 24<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interedil Srl (In Liquidation) v. Fallimento\n Interedil Srl<\/em> (C-396\/09) [2011] EU 671<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rastelli Davide\n e C. Snc v. Jean-Charles Hidoux <\/em>(C-191\/10)\n [2011] ECLI 838<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Re\n Daisytek \u2013 ISA Ltd and others<\/em> [2003]\n All ER (D) 312<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Re Enron Directo\n Sociedad Limitada<\/em> [2002] High Court England<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Re Fencore\n Services Ltd<\/em> [2010] IEHC 358<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Susanne\n Staubitz-Schreiber <\/em>(C-1\/04)[2006] ECLI 39<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Schefenacker AG<\/em> [2007]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The PIN Group AG S.A.<\/em> [2007]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Statutes<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Council\n Regulation (EC) No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings [2000]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regulation (EU)\n No 2015\/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on insolvency\n proceedings (Recast) [2015]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Secondary Sources<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Books<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Finch V, Milman\n D, Corporate Insolvency Law:\n Perspectives and Principles<\/em> (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press 2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keay A, Walton\n P, Insolvency Law: Corporate and\n Personal<\/em> (4th edn, Jordan Publishing Limited 2017)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sealy L S,\n Milman D, Annotated Guide to the\n Insolvency Legislation: Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 EU\n Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings 2000 UNCITRAL model law on cross-border\n insolvency Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 Selected statutes and\n statutory instruments<\/em> (14th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2011)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Silkenat J R,\n Schmerler C D, The Law of International\n Insolvencies and Debt Restructurings<\/em> (Oceana Publications 2006)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Virgos M,\n Garcimartin F, The European Insolvency\n Regulation: Law and Practice<\/em> (Kluwer Law International 2004)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wood P R, Principles of International Insolvency<\/em>\n (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2007)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wood P R, International Loans, Bonds, Guarantees,\n Legal Opinions<\/em> (2nd edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2007)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Xie B, Comparative\n Insolvency Law: The Pre-pack Approach in Corporate Rescue<\/em> (Edward Elgar Publishing 2016) 279<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Journal Articles<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Aasaru E, ”The Desirability of \u2019Centre of Main\n Interests\u2019 as a Mechanism for Allocating Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in\n Cross-Border Insolvency Law’ [2011] 22 (3) European Business\n Law Review 349<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Aksamovic D, ‘EU Insolvency Law-New Recast Regulation\n on Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2017) 1 EU and Comparative Law Issues and\n Challenges Series 69<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Arnold M, ‘Truth or Illusion? COMI Migration and\n Forum Shopping under the EUI Insolvency Regulation ‘[2013] 14\n (3) Business Law International 245<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bachner T, ‘The Battle over Jurisdiction in\n European Insolvency Law \u2013 ECJ 252006, C-341\/04 (Eurofood)’ [2006] 3\n (3) European Company and Financial Law Review 310<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Belohl\u00e1vek AJ, ‘Center of main interest (COMI)\n and jurisdiction of national courts in insolvency matters (insolvency status)\n ‘ [2008] 50 (2) International Journal of Law and\n Management 53<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biermeyer T, ‘Case C-396\/09 Interedil Srl,\n Judgment of the Court of 20 October 2011, Not Yet Reported Court Guidance as\n to the COMI Concept in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2011) 18\n (4) Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 581<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bufford SL, ‘Center of Main Interests, International\n Insolvency Case Venue, and Equality of Arms: The Eurofood Decision of the\n European Court of Justice.’ (2007) 27 (2) Northwestern Journal of\n International Law & Business 385<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cain B, ‘Cross Border Restructuring: Choosing the\n Right Strategy.’ (2009) 5(5) Journal of Bankruptcy Law\n 427<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Cohen A; Sara Tapinekis, ‘The Location of Letterbox\n Company’s Registered Office is Not Its COMI.’ (2008) 2 (5) Law and Financial\n Markets Review 411<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Corcoran AM; Hari TL, ‘The Regulation of Cross-Border\n Financial Services in the EU Internal Market.’ (2002) 8 (2) Columbia Journal\n of European Law 221<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Council Regulation (EC) No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency\n Proceedings.’ (2000) 5 (3) Uniform Law Review 534<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Drobnig U, ‘Secured Credit in International\n Insolvency Proceedings.’ (1998) 33 (1) Texas International Law Journal 53<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Eidenmuller H, ‘Abuse of Law in the Context of\n European Insolvency Law.’ (2009) 6 (1) European Company and Financial Law\n Review 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fierbinteanu G, ‘ Amending Regulation (EC)\n No1346\/2000 On Insolvency Proceedings – Solving Deficiencies or Attempt to\n Rescue Companies in Difficulty? ‘ [2013] Xx (2) Lex Et\n Scientia 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Fierbinteanu G, ‘A New Approach in Cross Border\n Cases – Regulation (EU) No 2015\/848 of the European Parliament and of The\n Council Of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings\n (Recast)?’ [2017] 7 Challenges of The Knowledge\n Society 227<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Galen R V, ‘The\n Recast Insolvency Regulation and groups of companies’ [2015] 16(2) ERA\n Forum 241<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goetker U and Quenby G, ‘The Migration.’ (2007) 26(9)\n International Financial Law Review 48<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Kaufman AM, ‘The European Union Goes Comi-Tose:\n Hazards of Harmonizing Corporate Insolvency Laws in the Global Economy.’\n (2007) 29 (3) Houston Journal of International Law 625, 633<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mucciarelli FM, ‘Not Just Efficiency: Insolvency Law in the EU and\n Its Political Dimension’ [2013] 14 (2) European Business Organization Law\n Review 17<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Intertax, ‘EC: Completing the Internal\n Market’ [1985] 13 (9) Intertax 218<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moraru BM; Hasanin DMD, ‘The Center of Main Interests\n of the Debtor in the Insolvency Proceedings at the European Union Level\n Differences between the EU Regulation No. 1346\/29 05.2000 and EU Regulation No.\n 848\/20.5.2015.’ (2017) 7 (Special Issue) Juridical Tribune 164<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moravec T; Pastorcak J; Valenta P, ‘European\n Regulation of Insolvency Status in the Hybrid Proceeding.’ (2015) 12 (5)\n US-China Law Review 455<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCormack G, ‘Something\n Old, Something New: Recasting the European Insolvency Regulation'[2016] 79(1) The\n Modern Law Review 121<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCormack G,\n ‘Reconstructing European Insolvency Law – Putting in Place a New Paradigm.’\n (2010) 30(1) Legal Studies 126<\/p>\n\n\n\n

McCormack G, ‘Jurisdictional Competition and Forum\n Shopping in Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2009) 68(1) Cambridge Law Journal 169<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Menjucq M; Dammann R ‘Regulation No 1346\/2000 on\n Insolvency Proceedings: Facing the Companies Group Phenomenon.’ (2008) 9\n (2) Business Law International 145<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Menjucq M, ‘EC-Regulation No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency\n Proceedings and Groups of Companies.’ (2008) 5 (2) European Company and\n Financial Law Review 135<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nielson A; Sigal M; Wagner K, ‘The Cross-Border\n Insolvency Concordat: Principles to Facilitate the Resolution of International\n Insolvencies.’ (1996) 70 (4) American Bankruptcy Law Journal 533<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Paterson S, ‘Insolvency Law, Restructuring Law and\n Modern Financial Markets, Policy Briefing 8 (LSE Law Policy Briefing Series<\/em>, 2015) <http:\/\/eprints.lse.ac.uk\/64050\/1\/Policy%20Briefing%208_20152.pdf> accessed 7 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Popovici S, ‘Cross-Border Insolvency: Frame and\n Limit for Cross-Border Forced Execution.’ (2015) 2015 (1) Revista de Stiinte\n Juridice 103<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ragan A C C, ‘COMI Strikes a Discordant Note: Why\n U.S. Courts are Not in Complete Harmony despite Chapter 15 Directives.’ (2010)\n 27(1) Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal 117<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Requejo I M, ‘Judicial Cooperation in Cross-Border\n Insolvency in the Proposed Regulation of the European Parliament and of the\n Council Amending Regulation (EC) No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings,\n (Summary).’ (2013) 13 Anuario Espanol de Derecho Internacional Privado 217<\/p>\n\n\n\n

S\u00f8rensen KE, ‘Groups of Companies in the Case\n Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union’ [2016] 27\n (3) European Business Law Review 409<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Starc-Meclejan F, ‘Groups of Companies and\n Environmental Liability Confronting.’ (2013) 2(1) Perspectives of Business Law\n Journal 234<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stones K, ‘Eurofood Leaves Much Unanswered.’ (2006)\n 25(8) International Financial Law Review 10<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Story SE, ‘Cross-Border Insolvency: A Comparative\n Analysis.’ (2015) 32(2) Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law\n 431<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Szyd\u0142o M, ‘The Notion of COMI in European Insolvency\n Law ‘ [2009] 20 (5) European Business Law Review 747<\/p>\n\n\n\n

UNCITRAL, ‘Note by The Secretariat on The Interpretation\n and Application of Selected Concepts of The Uncitral Model Law on Insolvency\n Law: Cross-Border Insolvency Relating to Centre Of Main Interests (COMI)’ [2011] 42\n (1) United Nations Commission on International Trade Law 1071<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weideman J J and Stander A. A. European and American\n Perspectives on the Choice of Law regarding Cross-Border Insolvencies on\n Multinational Corporations – Suggestions for South Africa.’ (2012) 15\n (5) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 132<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weijs RJ De, Breeman M, ‘Comi-Migration: Use of\n Abuse of European Insolvency Law ‘ [2014] 11 (4) European Company\n and Financial Law Review 495<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wessels B, ”The Ongoing Struggle of\n Multinational Groups of Companies under the EC Insolvency Regulation’\n ‘ [2009] 6 (4) European Company Law 169<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wessels B, ‘The Place of the Registered Office of a\n Company: A Cornerstone in the Application of the EC Insolvency Regulation’\n ‘ [2006] 3 (4) European Company Law 183<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wheater J, COMI Migration and UK and EU Corporate\n Tax.’ (2013) 14 (3) Business Law International 261, 265<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wilkinson A, Horspool T; McKim I, ‘The Case for\n Unifying the EU’s Insolvency Laws.’ (2005) 24 (7) International Financial Law\n Review 49<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Websites and Blogs<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Janjuah R, ‘Court\n Allows Change of COMI to Bolster Cross-Border Group Restructuring’ (International\n Law Office<\/em>, 3 October 2008) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<https:\/\/www.internationallawoffice.com\/Newsletters\/Insolvency-Restructuring\/Germany\/Freshfields-Bruckhaus-Deringer-LLP\/Court-Allows-Change-of-COMI-to-Bolster-Cross-Border-Group-Restructuring#> accessed\n 11 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jonesdaycome\n \u2018Understanding \u201cCentre of Main Interests\u201d Where Are We?\u2019 (Jonesdaycom<\/em>, October\n 2007) <https:\/\/www.jonesday.com\/understanding-centre-of-main-interests-where-are-we\/#> accessed 3\n September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Slk-lawcom, ‘Insolvency Laws in Germany, UK and\n the US \u2013 A Comparative Law Analysis for TradeCreditors'(Slk-lawcom<\/em>, 2013) <https:\/\/www.slk-law.com\/portalresource\/DHC.Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Insolvency%20Laws%20of%20US-UK-Germany> accessed\n 1 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stefanie Slapke, ‘Cross-border insolvency: The\n European Court of Justice on determining the centre of main interests’ (GvW<\/em>, April\n 2012) <http:\/\/www.gvw.com\/aktuelles\/newsletter\/gvw-international\/april-2012\/cross-border-insolvency-the-european-court-of-justice-on-determining-the-centre-of-main-interests.html>accessed\n 5 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stones K, ‘Final Wording – Recast Regulation on\n Insolvency 2015\/848 published today’ (LexisNexis<\/em>, June 5, 2015) <https:\/\/blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk\/randi\/final-wording-recast-regulation-on-insolvency\/> accessed 5 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Weijs R J D and\n Breeman M, ‘Comi-Migration:\n Use or Abuse of European Insolvency Law? Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies\n Research Paper No. 2013-38 ‘(SSRN<\/em>, 2013) <https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291405> accessed\n 8 September 2018
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> Intertax, ‘EC:\nCompleting the Internal Market’ [1985] 13 (9) Intertax 218<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also: Andrea M. Corcoran; Terry\nL. Hari, ‘The Regulation of Cross-Border Financial Services in the EU Internal\nMarket.’ (2002) 8 (2) Columbia Journal of European Law 221<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Epp Aasaru, ”The\nDesirability of \u2019Centre of Main Interests\u2019 as a Mechanism for Allocating\nJurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-Border Insolvency\nLaw’ [2011] 22 (3) European Business Law Review 349 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also: Sergiu\nPopovici, ‘Cross-Border Insolvency: Frame and Limit for Cross-Border\nForced Execution.’ (2015) 2015 (1) Revista de Stiinte Juridice 103<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Anne\nNielson; Mike Sigal; Karen Wagner ‘The Cross-Border Insolvency Concordat:\nPrinciples to Facilitate the Resolution of International Insolvencies.’ (1996)\n70 (4) American Bankruptcy Law Journal 533<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> \u2018Council\nRegulation (EC) No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2000) 5\n(3) Uniform Law Review 534<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Alexander J\nBelohl\u00e1vek, ‘Center of main interest (COMI) and jurisdiction of national\ncourts in insolvency matters (insolvency status) ‘ [2008] 50\n(2) International Journal of Law and Management 53<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Michel\nMenjucq; Reinhard Dammann ‘Regulation No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings:\nFacing the Companies Group Phenomenon.’ (2008) 9 (2) Business Law\nInternational 145<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Tomas\nMoravec; Jan Pastorcak; Petr Valenta, ‘European Regulation of Insolvency Status\nin the Hybrid Proceeding.’ (2015) 12 (5) US-China Law Review 455<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Kathy Stones, ‘Final\nWording – Recast Regulation on Insolvency 2015\/848 published today’ (LexisNexis<\/em>, June 5, 2015) <https:\/\/blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk\/randi\/final-wording-recast-regulation-on-insolvency\/> accessed 1 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> Ulrich\nDrobnig, ‘Secured Credit in International Insolvency Proceedings.’ (1998)\n33 (1) Texas International Law Journal 53<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Andrew\nWilkinson; Tony Horspool; Ian McKim, ‘The Case for Unifying the EU’s Insolvency\nLaws.’ (2005) 24 (7) International Financial Law Review 49<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also: Slk-law, ‘Insolvency\nLaws in Germany, UK and the US \u2013 A Comparative Law Analysis for Trade\nCreditors'(Slk-law.com<\/em>, 2013) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<https:\/\/www.slk-law.com\/portalresource\/DHC.Comparative%20Analysis%20of%20Insolvency%20Laws%20of%20US-UK-Germany> accessed\n1 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Horst\nEidenmuller, ‘Abuse of Law in the Context of European Insolvency Law.’ (2009) 6\n(1) European Company and Financial Law Review 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Sarah Paterson, ‘Insolvency Law, Restructuring Law and Modern Financial\nMarkets, Policy Briefing 8 (LSE Law Policy Briefing Series<\/em>, 2015)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<http:\/\/eprints.lse.ac.uk\/64050\/1\/Policy%20Briefing%208_20152.pdf> accessed 7 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> Beatrice\nMihaela Moraru; Diab Moh’d Diab Hasanin, ‘The Center of Main Interests of the\nDebtor in the Insolvency Proceedings at the European Union Level Differences\nbetween the EU Regulation No. 1346\/29 05.2000 and EU Regulation No.\n848\/20.5.2015.’ (2017) 7 (Special Issue) Juridical Tribune 164<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Mark\nArnold, ‘Truth or Illusion? COMI Migration and Forum Shopping under the\nEUI Insolvency Regulation ‘[2013] 14 (3) Business Law\nInternational 245<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Alexander J Belohl\u00e1vek, ‘Center\nof main interest (COMI) and jurisdiction of national courts in insolvency\nmatters (insolvency status) ‘ [2008] 50 (2) International\nJournal of Law and Management 53<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Gabriela\nFierbinteanu, ‘ Amending Regulation (EC) No1346\/2000 On Insolvency\nProceedings – Solving Deficiencies or Attempt to Rescue Companies in\nDifficulty? ‘ [2013] XX (2) Lex Et Scientia 8. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Bob\nWessels, ‘The Place of the Registered Office of a Company: a Cornerstone in the\nApplication of the EC Insolvency Regulation’ ‘ [2006] 3\n(4) European Company Law 183<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Recita 13, Council Regulation (EC) No\n1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings [2000]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also: Bob\nWessels, ”The Ongoing Struggle of Multinational Groups of Companies under\nthe EC Insolvency Regulation’ ‘ [2009] 6 (4) European Company\nLaw 169<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Epp Aasaru, ”The Desirability\nof \u2019Centre of Main Interests\u2019 as a Mechanism for Allocating Jurisdiction and\nApplicable Law in Cross-Border Insolvency Law’ [2011] 22 (3) European\nBusiness Law Review 349<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Eurofood\nIFSC Ltd<\/em>, Re (C-341\/04) [2006] ECR I-3813, [2006] 3 WLR 309<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> Samuel L.\nBufford, ‘Center of Main Interests, International Insolvency Case Venue, and\nEquality of Arms: The Eurofood Decision of the European Court of Justice.’\n(2007) 27 (2) Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 351, 385<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Thomas\nBachner, ‘The Battle over Jurisdiction in European Insolvency Law \u2013 ECJ\n252006, C-341\/04 (Eurofood)’ [2006] 3 (3) European Company and\nFinancial Law Review 310<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Marek\nSzyd\u0142o, ‘The Notion of Comi in European Insolvency Law ‘ [2009] 20\n(5) European Business Law Review 747<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also: Karsten\nEngsig S\u00f8rensen, ‘Groups of Companies in the Case Law of the Court of\nJustice of the European Union’ [2016] 27 (3) European Business Law\nReview 409<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Adrian\nCohen; Sara Tapinekis, ‘The Location of Letterbox Company’s Registered Office\nis Not Its COMI.’ (2008) 2 (5) Law and Financial Markets Review 411<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Thomas\nBiermeyer, ‘Case C-396\/09 Interedil Srl, Judgment of the Court of 20\nOctober 2011, Not Yet Reported Court Guidance as to the COMI Concept in\nCross-Border Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2011) 18 (4) Maastricht Journal of\nEuropean and Comparative Law 581<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Samuel L. Bufford, ‘Center of Main\nInterests, International Insolvency Case Venue, and Equality of Arms: The\nEurofood Decision of the European Court of Justice.’ (2007) 27 (2) Northwestern\nJournal of International Law & Business 351, 385<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> Diana\nUngureanu, ‘The Centre of the Debtor’s Main Interests, an Autonomous\nConcept in the Case-Law of the Court of Luxembourg.’ (2009) 2009 (1) Revista\nRomana de Drept Comunitar 80<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> UNCITRAL, ‘Note\nBy The Secretariat On The Interpretation And Application Of Selected Concepts\nOf The Uncitral Model Law On Insolvency Law: Cross-Border Insolvency Relating\nTo Centre Of Main Interests (Comi)’ [2011] 42 (1) United Nations\nCommission On International Trade Law 1071<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> Arnold\nM, ‘Truth or Illusion? COMI Migration and Forum Shopping under the EUI\nInsolvency Regulation ‘[2013] 14 (3) Business Law International 248<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> Michel\nMenjucq, ‘EC-Regulation No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings and Groups of\nCompanies.’ (2008) 5 (2) European Company and Financial Law Review 135<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> Jonesday \u2018Understanding \u201cCentre of Main\nInterests\u201d Where Are We?\u2019 (Jonesday, October 2007)\n<https:\/\/www.jonesday.com\/understanding-centre-of-main-interests-where-are-we\/#>\naccessed 3 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Interedil\nSrl (In Liquidation) v Fallimento Interedil Srl<\/em> (C-396\/09) [2011] EU 671<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> Stefanie\nSlapke, ‘Cross-border insolvency: The European Court of Justice on\ndetermining the centre of main interests’ (GvW<\/em>, April\n2012) <http:\/\/www.gvw.com\/aktuelles\/newsletter\/gvw-international\/april-2012\/cross-border-insolvency-the-european-court-of-justice-on-determining-the-centre-of-main-interests.html>accessed\n5 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Alexander J Belohl\u00e1vek, ‘Center\nof main interest (COMI) and jurisdiction of national courts in insolvency\nmatters (insolvency status) ‘ [2008] 50 (2) International\nJournal of Law and Management 53, 65<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> Roelf Jakob\nde Weijs, Martijn Breeman, ‘Comi-Migration: Use of Abuse of European\nInsolvency Law ‘ [2014] 11 (4) European Company and Financial Law\nReview 495<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> Jennifer\nWheater, COMI Migration and UK and EU Corporate Tax.’ (2013) 14 (3) Business\nLaw International 261, 265<\/p>\n\n\n\n

See also: J. Weideman;\nA. L. Stander, European and American Perspectives on the Choice of Law\nregarding Cross-Border Insolvencies on Multinational Corporations – Suggestions\nfor South Africa.’ (2012) 15 (5) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 132<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[38]<\/a> Aaron M.\nKaufman, ‘The European Union Goes Comi-Tose: Hazards of Harmonizing Corporate\nInsolvency Laws in the Global Economy.’ (2007) 29 (3) Houston Journal of\nInternational Law 625, 633<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[39]<\/a> Agata Adamczyk,\n‘Insolvency of an EU Company May be Declared by a Court of Another Member\nState.’ (2009) 2 (2) Ankara Bar Review, 33 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

[40]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[41]<\/a> Bob Wessels, ‘The\nOngoing Struggle of Multinational Groups of Companies under the EC Insolvency\nRegulation’ [2009] 6(4) European\nCompany Law 169<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[42]<\/a> Robert Van Galen, ‘The\nRecast Insolvency Regulation and groups of companies’ [2015] 16(2) ERA\nForum 241, 242<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[43]<\/a> Michel Menjucq,\n‘EC-Regulation No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings and Groups of Companies.’\n(2008) 5 (2) European Company and Financial Law Review 135<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[44]<\/a> Marek Szyd\u0142o, ‘The\nNotion of COMI in European Insolvency Law’ [2009] 20(5) European\nBusiness Law Review 747<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[45]<\/a> Bob Wessels, ‘The\nOngoing Struggle of Multinational Groups of Companies under the EC Insolvency\nRegulation’ [2009] 6(4) European\nCompany Law 169<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[46]<\/a> Thomas Bachner, ‘The\nBattle over Jurisdiction in European Insolvency Law’ [2006] 3\n(3) European Company and Financial Law Review 310<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[47]<\/a> Kathy\nStones, ‘Eurofood Leaves Much Unanswered.’\n(2006) 25(8) International Financial Law Review 10<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[48]<\/a> Michel Menjucq, ‘EC-Regulation No\n1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings and Groups of Companies.’ (2008) 5 (2)\nEuropean Company and Financial Law Review 135, 141<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[49]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[50]<\/a> Flaminia\nStarc-Meclejan, ‘Groups of Companies and\nEnvironmental Liability Confronting.’ (2013) 2(1) Perspectives of Business Law\nJournal 234<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[51]<\/a> Bob Wessels, ‘The\nOngoing Struggle of Multinational Groups of Companies under the EC Insolvency\nRegulation’ [2009] 6(4) European\nCompany Law 169<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[52]<\/a> Marek Szyd\u0142o, ‘The\nNotion of COMI in European Insolvency Law’ [2009] 20(5) European\nBusiness Law Review 747<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[53]<\/a> Thomas\nBiermeyer, ‘Case C-396\/09 Interedil Srl,\nJudgment of the Court of 20 October 2011, Not Yet Reported Court Guidance as to\nthe COMI Concept in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2011) 18(4)\nMaastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 581<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[54]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[55]<\/a> Gerard McCormack, ‘Reconstructing European Insolvency Law – Putting\nin Place a New Paradigm.’ (2010) 30(1) Legal Studies 126, 132<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[56]<\/a> Roelf Jakob De Weijs and Martijn Breeman, ‘Comi-Migration:\nUse or Abuse of European Insolvency Law? Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies\nResearch Paper No. 2013-38 ‘(SSRN<\/em>, 2013) <https:\/\/papers.ssrn.com\/sol3\/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2291405> accessed\n8 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[57]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[58]<\/a> Horst\nEidenmuller, ‘Abuse of Law in the Context of\nEuropean Insolvency Law.’ (2009) 6 (1) European Company and Financial Law\nReview 1, 13<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[59]<\/a> Uwe Goetker\nand Georgia Quenby, ‘The Migration.’\n(2007) 26(9) International Financial Law Review 48<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[60]<\/a> Brian\nCain, ‘Cross Border Restructuring: Choosing the\nRight Strategy.’ (2009) 5(5) Journal of Bankruptcy Law 427<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[61]<\/a> Sean E\nStory, ‘Cross-Border Insolvency: A Comparative Analysis.’ (2015) 32(2) Arizona\nJournal of International and Comparative Law 431, 448<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[62]<\/a>Riaz Janjuah, ‘Court\nAllows Change of COMI to Bolster Cross-Border Group Restructuring’ (International\nLaw Office<\/em>, 3\nOctober 2008) <\/p>\n\n\n\n

<https:\/\/www.internationallawoffice.com\/Newsletters\/Insolvency-Restructuring\/Germany\/Freshfields-Bruckhaus-Deringer-LLP\/Court-Allows-Change-of-COMI-to-Bolster-Cross-Border-Group-Restructuring#> accessed\n11 September 2018<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[63]<\/a> Wessels\nB, ”The Ongoing Struggle of Multinational Groups of Companies under the\nEC Insolvency Regulation’ ‘ [2009] 6 (4) European Company\nLaw 169, 170<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[64]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[65]<\/a> Bo Xie, Comparative Insolvency Law: The\nPre-pack Approach in Corporate Rescue<\/em> (Edward\nElgar Publishing 2016) 279<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[66]<\/a> Horst Eidenmuller, ‘Abuse of Law in the Context of European Insolvency Law.’\n(2009) 6 (1) European Company and Financial Law Review 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[67]<\/a> BenQ Mobile Holdings B.V.<\/em>\n[2008] B.C.C. 489<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[68]<\/a> Weideman JJ\nand Stander AA, ‘European and American Perspectives on the Choice of Law\nregarding Cross-Border Insolvencies on Multinational Corporations – Suggestions\nfor South Africa.’ (2012) 15(5) Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 132, 193<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[69]<\/a> Epp Aasaru, ”The Desirability\nof \u2019Centre of Main Interests\u2019 as a Mechanism for Allocating Jurisdiction and Applicable\nLaw in Cross-Border Insolvency Law’ [2011] 22 (3) European\nBusiness Law Review 349, 368<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[70]<\/a> Horst\nEidenmuller, ‘Abuse of Law in the Context of\nEuropean Insolvency Law.’ (2009) 6 (1) European Company and Financial Law\nReview 1, 16<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[71]<\/a> Gerard McCormack, ‘Reconstructing European Insolvency Law – Putting\nin Place a New Paradigm.’ (2010) 30(1) Legal Studies 126<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[72]<\/a> Ibid 132<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[73]<\/a> Gerard\nMcCormack, ‘Jurisdictional Competition and Forum\nShopping in Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2009) 68(1) Cambridge Law Journal 169,\n191<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[74]<\/a> Alexandra\nC. C. Ragan, ‘COMI Strikes a Discordant Note: Why U.S. Courts are Not in\nComplete Harmony despite Chapter 15 Directives.’ (2010) 27(1) Emory Bankruptcy\nDevelopments Journal 117, 136<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[75]<\/a> Marta\nRequejo Isidro, ‘Judicial Cooperation in Cross-Border Insolvency in the\nProposed Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Amending\nRegulation (EC) No 1346\/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings, (Summary).’ (2013) 13\nAnuario Espanol de Derecho Internacional Privado 217, 218<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[76]<\/a> Dubravka\nAksamovic, ‘EU Insolvency Law-New Recast\nRegulation on Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2017) 1 EU and Comparative Law Issues\nand Challenges Series 69, 70<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[77]<\/a> Article 92, Regulation (EU) No 2015\/848 of the European Parliament\nand of the Council on insolvency proceedings (Recast) [2015]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[78]<\/a> Article 92 (b), Regulation (EU) No\n2015\/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on insolvency\nproceedings (Recast) [2015]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[79]<\/a> Ibid, Article 92 (c)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[80]<\/a> Gabriela Fierbin\u0163eanu, ‘A New\nApproach in Cross Border Cases – Regulation (EU) No 2015\/848 of the European\nParliament and of The Council Of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings\n(Recast)?’ [2017] 7 Challenges of The Knowledge Society 227<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[81]<\/a> Moraru BM;\nHasanin DMD, ‘The Center of Main Interests of the Debtor in the Insolvency\nProceedings at the European Union Level Differences between the EU Regulation\nNo. 1346\/29 05.2000 and EU Regulation No. 848\/20.5.2015.’ (2017) 7 (Special\nIssue) Juridical Tribune 164, 167<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[82]<\/a> Ibid, Article 3 (1) Para. 1<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[83]<\/a> Moraru BM; Hasanin DMD (n81)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[84]<\/a> ibid<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[85]<\/a> Article 3 (1), Para. 2, Regulation (EU) No\n2015\/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council on insolvency\nproceedings (Recast) [2015]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[86]<\/a> Dubravka Aksamovic, ‘EU Insolvency\nLaw-New Recast Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings.’ (2017) 1 EU and Comparative\nLaw Issues and Challenges Series 69, 91<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[87]<\/a> Marek Szyd\u0142o, ‘Prevention of\nForum Shopping in European Insolvency Law’ [2010] 11\n(2) European Business Organization Law Review 253<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[88]<\/a> Gerard McCormack, ‘Something\nOld, Something New: Recasting the European Insolvency Regulation'[2016] 79(1) The\nModern Law Review 121, 122<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[89]<\/a> Kathy Stones, ‘Final\nWording – Recast Regulation on Insolvency 2015\/848 published today’ (LexisNexis<\/em>, June 5, 2015) <https:\/\/blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk\/randi\/final-wording-recast-regulation-on-insolvency\/> accessed 10 September 2018<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An essay to critically analyze the challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member states. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[38],"tags":[87],"class_list":["post-456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-free-law-essayseuropean-law","tag-eu-law"],"yoast_head":"\nCentre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States | LawTeacher.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"An essay to critically analyze the challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member states.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"An essay to critically analyze the challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member states.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"LawTeacher.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1920\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1080\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/webp\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@LawTeacherNet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"LawTeacher\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"35 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"ScholarlyArticle\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\"},\"headline\":\"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States\",\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php\"},\"wordCount\":6950,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"EU Law\"],\"articleSection\":[\"EU Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php\",\"name\":\"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States | LawTeacher.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"An essay to critically analyze the challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member states.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"description\":\"The Law Essay Professionals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Law Teacher\",\"alternateName\":\"LawTeacher.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg\",\"width\":250,\"height\":250,\"caption\":\"Law Teacher\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0\"],\"description\":\"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.\",\"email\":\"contact@lawteacher.net\",\"telephone\":\"+44 115 966 7966\",\"numberOfEmployees\":{\"@type\":\"QuantitativeValue\",\"minValue\":\"51\",\"maxValue\":\"200\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e\",\"name\":\"LawTeacher\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"LawTeacher\"},\"description\":\"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet\",\"https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile\"],\"knowsAbout\":[\"Contract Law\",\"Criminal Law\",\"Constitutional and Administrative Law\",\"EU Law\",\"Tort Law\",\"Property Law\",\"Equity and Trusts\",\"Jurisprudence\",\"Company Law\",\"Commercial Law\",\"Family Law\",\"Human Rights Law\",\"Employment Law\",\"Evidence\",\"Public International Law\",\"Legal Research and Methods\",\"Dispute Resolution\",\"Business Law and Practice\",\"Civil Litigation\",\"Criminal Litigation\",\"Professional Conduct\",\"Taxation\",\"Wills and Administration of Estates\",\"Solicitors\u2019 Accounts\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States | LawTeacher.net","description":"An essay to critically analyze the challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member states.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States","og_description":"An essay to critically analyze the challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member states.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php","og_site_name":"LawTeacher.net","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","article_published_time":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1920,"height":1080,"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-large-logo.webp","type":"image\/webp"}],"author":"LawTeacher","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_site":"@LawTeacherNet","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"LawTeacher","Estimated reading time":"35 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"ScholarlyArticle","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php"},"author":{"name":"LawTeacher","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e"},"headline":"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States","datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php"},"wordCount":6950,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"keywords":["EU Law"],"articleSection":["EU Law"],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php","url":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php","name":"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States | LawTeacher.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website"},"datePublished":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00+00:00","description":"An essay to critically analyze the challenges faced by the use of COMI within the European Union member states.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"http:\/\/64.226.118.242:8001\/free-law-essays\/european-law\/centre-of-main-interests-eu-states-1375.php#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Challenges in EU States"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","name":"Law Teacher","description":"The Law Essay Professionals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#organization","name":"Law Teacher","alternateName":"LawTeacher.net","url":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/LT-logo.jpg","width":250,"height":250,"caption":"Law Teacher"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet\/","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/api.whatsapp.com\/send\/?phone=447723491966&text&type=phone_number&app_absent=0"],"description":"Law Teacher provides academic writing services for law students throughout the world.","email":"contact@lawteacher.net","telephone":"+44 115 966 7966","numberOfEmployees":{"@type":"QuantitativeValue","minValue":"51","maxValue":"200"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/b99962c073c877c4ab8ee3d2486cd56e","name":"LawTeacher","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/wp.lawteacher.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4fdfab0a9ef25209f111018ecc8a983e19e57c5066a9277217a119582ccbeed3?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"LawTeacher"},"description":"LawTeacher.net is the UK's leading provider of academic legal support, offering both writing services and an extensive collection of law study resources for students in the UK and overseas. Founded in 2003 by Grey's Inn graduate Barclay Littlewood, the Company was built on a commitment to excellence, with unique guarantees and a high standard of service from day one. The team includes over 500 UK legally qualified writing experts, with many practising solicitors and barristers, and several former lecturers.","sameAs":["https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/x.com\/LawTeacherNet","https:\/\/gravatar.com\/lawteacherprofile"],"knowsAbout":["Contract Law","Criminal Law","Constitutional and Administrative Law","EU Law","Tort Law","Property Law","Equity and Trusts","Jurisprudence","Company Law","Commercial Law","Family Law","Human Rights Law","Employment Law","Evidence","Public International Law","Legal Research and Methods","Dispute Resolution","Business Law and Practice","Civil Litigation","Criminal Litigation","Professional Conduct","Taxation","Wills and Administration of Estates","Solicitors\u2019 Accounts"],"url":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/author\/lawteacher"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=456"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/456\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lawteacher.net\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}