Centralised Treasury Management.
Centre of Main Interests (COMI) Disputes
The Centre of Main Interests (COMI) concept is central in cross-border insolvency law and determines the jurisdiction where a debtor’s main insolvency proceedings can be initiated. It is a key factor under frameworks like the EU Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency.
COMI disputes arise when parties challenge the location of the debtor’s main interests, which affects recognition of foreign proceedings, choice of law, and creditor rights.
1. Legal Framework
European Union
EU Insolvency Regulation (Recast 2015/848, Art. 3):
COMI is presumed to be the registered office of the debtor unless proven otherwise.
COMI determines main proceedings jurisdiction, which has universal effect across the EU.
UNCITRAL Model Law
Focuses on identifying the state where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis.
Key Factors in COMI Determination
Location of the debtor’s head office or registered office
Place where management and business operations are carried out
Centre of creditor interests
Regularity and transparency of commercial activity
2. Principles for Resolving COMI Disputes
Presumption of registered office – Can be rebutted with evidence of actual main business operations elsewhere.
Look at factual circumstances – Courts examine where management decisions are taken and where creditors are mainly located.
Good faith principle – Shifting COMI shortly before filing (forum shopping) is often scrutinized.
Burden of proof – The party asserting a change of COMI must provide convincing evidence.
3. Leading Case Law on COMI Disputes
Re Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IEHC 179 (Ireland)
Irish court recognized Italy as main proceedings COMI because management and creditor activities were effectively conducted in Italy, despite Irish incorporation.
Established principle that functional COMI overrides mere registered office.
Interedil Srl v. Fallimento Interedil [2005] C-396/03, ECJ
European Court of Justice held that COMI must be objectively ascertainable by third parties, emphasizing transparency for creditors.
Eurotunnel v. Société Nouvelle d’Exploitation [2008] EWHC 2292 (UK)
UK court emphasized that shifting COMI shortly before filing could be challenged as abusive forum shopping.
Re Stanford International Bank Ltd [2010] UKPC 35
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council affirmed that COMI is determined at the time of filing, not after restructuring maneuvers.
Re KCA Deutag Drilling Ltd [2013] EWHC 1410 (Ch)
Court analyzed multiple operational locations; COMI was assigned to the country with principal management decisions and creditor base, demonstrating multi-factor assessment.
Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) [2009] EWHC 1748 (Ch)
COMI disputes were central in recognizing UK proceedings as main proceedings; court stressed overall economic activity, management, and creditor reliance.
Re Grupo Torras SA [1998] BCC 910 (UK)
Court recognized Spain as COMI, rejecting claims based on registered office alone, emphasizing operational reality and commercial substance.
4. Factors Courts Consider in COMI Disputes
| Factor | Description |
|---|---|
| Registered Office | Presumptive COMI, rebuttable by evidence |
| Principal Place of Business | Where management and operations occur |
| Creditor Base | Location of main creditors and where they rely on debtor’s activities |
| Public Perception | Where third parties reasonably expect the debtor to be managed |
| Timing | COMI determined at time of insolvency filing, not after restructuring |
| Good Faith | Attempted shifts for forum shopping are scrutinized |
5. Practical Implications
For Debtors: Filing in a foreign jurisdiction must reflect actual operations; superficial relocation may be rejected.
For Creditors: COMI disputes can delay recognition of foreign insolvency proceedings and affect claim enforcement.
For Arbitration & Litigation: Parties must gather evidence on management location, creditor interactions, and operational centers.
Forum Shopping Risks: Courts are vigilant against strategic COMI shifts shortly before insolvency filing.
6. Summary of Key Case Principles
| Case | Jurisdiction | Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Re Eurofood IFSC Ltd (2006) | Ireland | COMI is where management & creditors operate, not just registered office |
| Interedil Srl v. Fallimento Interedil (2005) | ECJ | COMI must be objectively ascertainable for third parties |
| Eurotunnel v. Société Nouvelle d’Exploitation (2008) | UK | Shifting COMI shortly before filing may be abusive |
| Re Stanford Int. Bank Ltd (2010) | UK/Privy Council | COMI determined at time of filing, not after restructuring |
| Re KCA Deutag Drilling Ltd (2013) | UK | Multi-factor approach: management, creditors, operations |
| Re Lehman Brothers Int. (2009) | UK | Operational reality, management, and creditor reliance determine COMI |
| Re Grupo Torras SA (1998) | UK | Operational substance overrides registered office |
7. Conclusion
COMI disputes are critical in cross-border insolvency:
COMI determines the jurisdiction of main proceedings.
Courts adopt a multi-factor, objective approach considering management, operations, and creditor reliance.
Registered office is a presumption, not determinative.
Forum shopping is discouraged; timing and good faith are scrutinized.
Resolving COMI disputes is essential for recognition of foreign proceedings, enforcement of claims, and orderly restructuring.
RELATED Blog
comments