Abstract
AbstractThis article traces the emergence of the concept of ‘group solution’ and its manifestations in insolvency law and bank resolution as an alternative to the rigid entity-by-entity approach. The rise of this concept can be linked to the recognition of the specificity of problems related to the insolvency of multinational enterprise groups, arising from group operational and financial interconnectedness. This has not happened at once, but has resulted from the evolution of views and ideas, evident in hard and soft law instruments of the 2000s and the 2010s. In light of this important development the article explores the concept of a group solution, its rationale, scope of application and limitations. It concludes that despite the gradual acceptance of the group phenomenon, a group solution has not been formed as a coherent and well-defined legal principle. Instead, it represents a variety of approaches, tools and practices, which pursue different policy objectives underpinned by different societal values. Among them are asset value maximization, business rescue, the protection of financial stability and the preservation of banks’ critical functions. With all its flexibility, a group solution has one pervasive limitation—it cannot trump the interests of individual group members and their creditors. At the same time, in order to realize the full potential of a group solution, it is necessary to embrace the group-sensitive and forward-looking interpretation of creditors’ interest, facilitating commercially sensible and practical group solutions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations,Business and International Management
Reference72 articles.
1. Adler B (2018) The creditors’ bargain revisited. Univ Pa Law Rev 166:1853–1865
2. Avgouleas E, Goodhart C, Schoenmaker D (2013) Bank resolution plans as a catalyst for global financial reform. J Financ Stab 9:210–218
3. Ayotte K, Hansmann H (2013) Legal entities as transferable bundles of contracts. Mich Law Rev 111:715–758
4. Baudino P, Sturluson JT, Svoronos J-P (2020) FSI crisis management series, No 1. https://www.bis.org/fsi/fsicms1.pdf. Accessed 24 June 2021
5. Bebchuk L, Tallarita R (2020) The illusory promise of stakeholder governance. Cornell Law Rev 106:91–178
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献