1 . 2 . H I S T O R I C A N T H C H D H N T S

Although co-operation is here presented as the paradigm ot modern cross-border

insolvency regulation, co-operation in insolvency matters as such is nothing'new' or

'modern'. Among the f i r s t more long-term international commitments to mutual cooperation

in insolvency matters is a provision in an agreement between Scotland and

the Dutch city of Dordrecht, dating back as early as 1668. The agreement, establishing

the Scottish staple in Holland at the city of Dordrecht, contained in Article X X X V the

following provision:

And in case it shall happen (which it is hoped shall not) that any of the Scottish |

St[aple| tail (>r become insolvent, by whom any of our inhabitants may sutter loss,

or is creditor, we in that case, together with the Lord Conservator, shall constitute

a curator for each of us, who shall jointly take care, and dispose to the best

advantage, the insolvent's goods or effects ad opus jus liabeiuii.'-

From Struggle to Co-operation

remark is appropriate at this point.1 In the second halt of the nineteenth century the

first failures of the great railway companies took place. For most of that period the

United States did not have a federal insolvency statute in force. And even when such

a statute was in force, it was generally geared towards liquidation of assets, and

considered unsuitable by creditors and debtors alike tor the reorganisation ot

businesses. As a result, the equitable receivership developed into a framework for

reorganisation. However, these receiverships were subject to the territorial limits oi

the jurisdiction of the courts. In practice this often led to the use ot primary and

ancillary receiverships to mitigate the worst of the consequences of territoriality. An

interesting recent development in modern cross-border insolvency regulation is thai

co-operation between several jurisdictions through the use of primary and ancillary

proceedings (in a variety ot tonus ) has again taken centre stage.