1 . 7 . O T H E R D E V E L O P M E N T S

The above systems rely to a large extent on the discretionary powers ofthe courts while

none provide clear guidance to inform the courts on how to exercise those powers.

All these systems belong to the common law legal tradition - but developments havealso

been taking place outside the common law world. For instance, in Germany the

law made an about-turn from territoriality to (controlled) universality in 1985 and

this has now been codified in the new insolvency Act {Insolvaizorihuuig).'i; Although

initially considered by the legislator, German cross-border insolvency law has not

developed towards the accommodation of co-operation as such.1 ' In Switzerland, with

the 1989 introduction of its Private International Law Act {IPRG), foreign proceedings

may be recognised and may trigger a downsized, streamlined local proceeding

(Mini-Konkurs). Alter local priority claims have been satisfied, remaining funds are

transferred to the foreign proceedings.1 ' 1 But again, Swiss cross-border insolvency

regulation leaves little to no room for c o - o p e r a t i o n . 1"

These innovations are significant. Indeed, they are as much part of a global move away

from traditional territoriality approaches as the national laws discussed above. However,

they have not produced the same thrust in the development of cross-border insolvency

regulation as the co-operative approaches. It is these later approaches which

have laid the groundwork for the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency

which aims to improve the legal context of cross-border insolvencies on a world-wide

basis.