First Case continued from page 15 fore, the focus is on examining whether a reciprocal relationship exists. The BVI Bankruptcy Act explicitly stipulates that its courts shall provide full assistance to foreign bankruptcy proceedings, refusing assistance only where such assistance would be contrary to public policy. Furthermore, the BVI courts have confirmed in their request letters that, based on considerations of international comity and the promotion of the interests of private international law, they will actively accept equivalent requests from Chinese courts; Furthermore, although there is no precedent of the BVI courts recognizing Chinese bankruptcy judgments, there is also no record of them refusing to recognize Chinese civil, commercial, or bankruptcy rulings. Combined with the Supreme People’ s Court’ s current lenient stance on the application of the principle of reciprocity, the court has departed from the traditional strict requirement of factual reciprocity and presumed that a legal relationship of reciprocity exists between China and the BVI regarding the recognition of cross-border bankruptcy orders, thereby satisfying this requirement.
D. Whether the recognition and enforcement of the bankruptcy order at issue would
54 violate the fundamental principles of Chinese law or undermine national sovereignty, security, and the public interest
Based on the facts of this case, the court determined that the proceedings in which the BVI court issued the bankruptcy order were lawful and fair, and that creditors within China were afforded equal opportunities to participate in the bankruptcy proceedings. The court concluded that recognizing the bankruptcy order would not undermine China’ s national sovereignty, security, or the public interest, nor would it violate the fundamental principles of Chinese law, and that no public policy exception applied. Furthermore, this case also involved the scope of Liquidator Y’ s duties within China. The court, referring to the provisions on the statutory duties of administrators under Article 25( 1) of
China’ s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law and in conjunction with the provisions on the powers of liquidators under relevant BVI laws, clearly defined the scope of Y’ s duties. Upon review, the scope of duties applied for by Y did not exceed the boundaries of the duties of administrators as prescribed by China’ s Enterprise Bankruptcy Law; therefore, it was granted in accordance with the law.
In summary, having determined that all four core requirements were met and having clearly defined the scope of the liquidator’ s duties, the court ruled to recognize the bankruptcy order issued by the BVI court in accordance with the law. III. Typical Significance In the absence of bilateral or multilateral treaties governing cross-border bankruptcy cooperation, this case draws upon the spirit of consensus regarding " presumed reciprocity " as articulated in Article 7 of the Nanning Statement. Specifically, where no precedent exists in the courts of a foreign jurisdiction for refusing to recognize and enforce a Chinese judgment on the grounds of a lack of reciprocity, a reciprocal relationship may be presumed within the scope permitted by domestic law. Through this presumption of legal reciprocity, mutual recognition of cross-border bankruptcy orders was achieved despite the absence of prior British Virgin Islands( BVI) precedents recognizing Chinese bankruptcy judgments. This provides a valuable practical model for handling cross-border bankruptcy matters involving offshore jurisdictions. It further demonstrates that, in the absence of a treaty basis, the focus of legal argumentation may be shifted toward whether the laws of the foreign jurisdiction reserve space for recognition, rather than passively awaiting prior recognition from the other side.
Furthermore, this case effectively opens a channel for bankruptcy assistance between the Mainland and offshore centers such as the BVI,
continued on page 55
54