• 

Center Of Main Interests Determination

📌 What is Centre of Main Interests (COMI)?

COMI is a **legal concept used to determine which court has jurisdiction to open main cross‑border insolvency proceedings for a debtor. It is crucial for identifying the forum whose legal system will primarily govern the insolvency of a debtor with international connections.

General Principles

Definition (EU context):
COMI is the place where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis and which is ascertainable by third parties (e.g., creditors).

Presumption of Registered Office:
In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a debtor’s COMI is presumed to be at the registered office of the company.

Rebuttal of Presumption:
This presumption can be reversed only if objective evidence shows that the central administration and economic activities are actually elsewhere.

Timing of Determination:
COMI is assessed as of the date when an insolvency petition is filed or when jurisdiction is first considered, not retrospectively over historical activities.

📚 Key Case Laws Illustrating COMI Determination

1. Eurofood IFSC Ltd v. Central Bank of Ireland (ECJ, 2006)

Jurisdiction: European Court of Justice

Significance:
This is the leading EU case on COMI interpretation. The ECJ held that COMI should not simply be equated with a debtor’s registered office. Instead, COMI is where the debtor regularly administers its interests and which is visible to third parties (e.g., investors, creditors).

Importance: Established that the registered office presumption is rebuttable with objective evidence.

2. Burgo Group Case (ECJ)

Jurisdiction: European Court of Justice

Significance: Confirmed Eurofood principles and held that objective evidence was required to rebut the COMI presumption.

It emphasised that courts must look at where management and decision‑making are genuinely conducted rather than merely following the registered office address.

3. East‑West Logistics LLP v. Melars Group Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1419 (UK Court of Appeal)

Issue: Whether COMI could be displaced from the jurisdiction of the registered office.

Ruling: The Court of Appeal underlined that lack of evidence of actual operational activities in the registered office jurisdiction alone is insufficient to rebut the COMI presumption.

Takeaway: A comprehensive set of factors — including management location, contract operations, and visibility to third parties — must be present.

4. Shierson v. Vlieland‑Boddy (English Case)

Jurisdiction: Court of Appeal, England

Issue: Timing and assessment of COMI.

Held: COMI must be determined at the time of the decision to open insolvency proceedings (often the first court hearing on the petition), not based only on later events.

Importance: Clarified the relevant date for COMI assessment and reaffirmed continuity and predictability for creditors and courts.

5. COMI Change – Galapagos BidCo (C‑723/20) (ECJ)

Jurisdiction: European Court of Justice

Facts: Concerned whether transferring COMI after filing an insolvency request could shift exclusive jurisdiction.

Decision: A debate exists on shifting COMI post‑petition; the ruling aims to discourage forum shopping by preventing artificial relocation once proceedings are underway.

Significance: Emphasises stability and predictability in cross‑border insolvency by fixing COMI at the time of filing.

6. In re Sentry / Ran (Chapter 15 US Context)

Jurisdiction: US Bankruptcy Court

Relevance: Examined when COMI is determined under US bankruptcy law (modelled broadly on the UNCITRAL Model Law).

Held: COMI is assessed at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy petition for recognition.

Significance: Aligns with the “relevant date” approach ensuring COMI assessment based on circumstances the petitioning creditors could foresee.

7. Re Fullerton Capital Ltd [2025] SGCA 11 (Singapore)

Jurisdiction: Singapore Court of Appeal

Facts: Recognition of a BVI liquidation under Singapore’s Model Law adoption.

Held: Courts applied a structured COMI test similar to EU and UNCITRAL principles.

Significance: Highlights global alignment with COMI concepts and reinforces visibility to third parties and objective factors.

🧠 Practical Factors Courts Consider When Determining COMI

Common factors used by courts across jurisdictions include:

🔹 Place of management and central administration
🔹 Location of operational activities (offices, factories, employees)
🔹 Where main contracts are negotiated and executed
🔹 Visibility to creditors and third parties
🔹 Location of key assets and economic interests
🔹 Registered office (as default starting presumption)

📌 Key Takeaways

✔ COMI is a factual concept, not tied only to registration or incorporation.
✔ Registered office is a rebuttable presumption, not conclusive.
✔ Objective, third‑party ascertainable qualities matter (predictability for creditors).
✔ Timing of COMI assessment is critical (generally at filing or first jurisdictional hearing).
✔ Courts globally, including EU, UK, US, and Singapore, have adopted similar principles, reinforcing international predictability.
✔ Preventing forum shopping and ensuring orderly cross‑border insolvency remains a central policy goal.

RELATED Blog

Corporate Law at Afghanistan

Corporate Law at Albania

Corporate Law at Algeria

Corporate Law at American Samoa (US)

Corporate Law at Bangladesh

Corporate Law at Andorra

Corporate Law at Angola

Corporate Law at Antigua and Barbuda

Corporate Law at Anguilla (BOT)

Corporate Law at Argentina