4. REGULATORY J U R I S D I C T I ON

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 
34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 
68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 
85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 
102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 
119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 
136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 
153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 
170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 
187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 
204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 
221 222 223 224 

Community law requires a sufficiently close connection between the Member State

wishing to take a measure and the interest to be protected by that measure. As

discussed earlier, Member States cannot claim regulatory jurisdiction where the interest

is wholly foreign to their territory and located entirely within the jurisdiction of

another Member State.1 m Accordingly, the question is under what circumstances a

Member State has a sufficient connection with the interests which the law of insolvency

aims to protect in order to claim universal appl ication of its lex fori conairms. It should

be noted that in this context a Member State's claim of regulatory jurisdiction runs

parallel with its rules on international jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings

(adjudicative jurisdiction). Where a Member State allows for international insolvency

jurisdiction, it also claims regulatory jurisdiction in the matter. Conversely, where t he

law of a Member State does not allow for the opening of proceedings, it does not desireto

regulate the insolvency through its proceedings and law either.

Generally, the jurisdictional bases currently employed by the Member States -domicile

establishment, or assets - will imply the presence of a genuine link with the interest

ot deployment. Exceptionally, however, the debtor's domicile mav raise some doubts

in this respect. Depending on the national law of a Member State the domicile of a

corporate debtor may either be the d e b t o r ' s centre of main interests or the statutory

seat. Although the former raises no problems in respect of sufficiently close connection,

the latter has the inherent potential that the domicile is no more than a purely

formal connection with the State of incorporation. For instance, the mere fact of a

company being registered in England or Wales gives the English court jurisdiction to

wind up that company. No other contacts, such as doing business, are required.'

Under C'ommunity law this is more than an academic possibility. In fact, the

judgments in Ccntros and Inspire A rt would appear to encourage exactly these situations.

'' T h e freedoms guarantee the right of companies, lawfully incorporated under

the laws of o n e Member State but not doing any business in that state, to establish

themselves in other Member States. Arguably, the sole fact that a debtor has been

incorporated under the laws o f a Member State does not in itself constitute a s u f f i ciently

close connection to establish (regulatory) jurisdiction.1