Chapter 5: Case Studies on Cross-Border

Insolvency
This chapter delves into the practical realities and complexities of cross-
border insolvency through detailed case studies, serving as a critical
component of this dissertation’s exploration of insolvency law reform in
Indonesia and the broader ASEAN region. While theoretical frameworks
and statutory analyses provide foundational understanding, it is through
empirical examination of landmark insolvency cases that the multifaceted
challenges and opportunities of cross-border insolvency become vividly
apparent. The case studies presented here—PT Pan Brothers TBK, Hanjin
Shipping, and Lehman Brothers—offer rich insights into how different
jurisdictions handle insolvency proceedings that transcend national
borders, highlighting the legal, procedural, and economic implications of
existing frameworks or their absence.

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze these cases with academic

rigor, drawing on extensive legal scholarship, court rulings, and industry
reports to illustrate the practical consequences of Indonesia’s current
insolvency laws in contrast with the internationally recognized
UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. Each case study is
selected to represent distinct facets of cross-border insolvency: PT Pan
Brothers TBK exemplifies the challenges faced by Indonesian entities
operating without a harmonized cross-border insolvency framework;
Hanjin Shipping demonstrates the operational efficiencies and judicial
cooperation enabled by Singapore’s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model
Law; and Lehman Brothers epitomizes the global scale and complexity of
insolvency proceedings requiring robust international coordination
mechanisms.

By systematically examining these cases, this chapter aims to uncover

the procedural difficulties, jurisdictional conflicts, and economic
repercussions that arise in the absence of a cohesive legal framework, as
well as the benefits realized through international legal harmonization.
The comparative analysis between Indonesia’s domestic insolvency
regime and the UNCITRAL Model Law will underscore critical gaps and
potential pathways for reform. Furthermore, the chapter will discuss the
broader implications for ASEAN, emphasizing the urgent need for a
regional insolvency model law that can facilitate judicial cooperation,
reduce legal uncertainty, and promote economic stability amid increasing
economic integration and cross-border commercial activities.

This chapter is structured into five main sections. It begins with an in-
depth case study of PT Pan Brothers TBK, followed by an analysis of the
Hanjin Shipping bankruptcy, and then a comprehensive review of the
Lehman Brothers insolvency. Subsequently, a comparative legal analysis
highlights the divergences and convergences between Indonesia’s
insolvency laws and the UNCITRAL Model Law. The chapter concludes
with a discussion on the challenges and policy implications for ASEAN’s
regional legal reform efforts. Throughout, the analysis is supported by
authoritative sources including UNCITRAL’s official texts, judicial
decisions, and academic commentaries, ensuring a robust and factually
grounded discourse on cross-border insolvency law and
practice(UNCITRAL, 1997)(WongPartnership, 2019)(InsolEurope, 2018).

5.1 PT Pan Brothers TBK: Challenges of Cross-Border

Insolvency without a Legal Framework
The case of PT Pan Brothers TBK, a prominent Indonesian textile
manufacturer, starkly illustrates the significant challenges faced by
Indonesian companies in cross-border insolvency situations due to the
absence of a comprehensive legal framework aligned with international
standards such as the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border
Insolvency. This case highlights the procedural complexities,
jurisdictional conflicts, and economic repercussions that arise when
Indonesia’s domestic insolvency laws fail to recognize or coordinate with
foreign insolvency proceedings, thereby impeding effective restructuring
and creditor protection.

PT Pan Brothers TBK entered into a financial restructuring process under

Indonesia’s Law No. 37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt
Payment Obligations (commonly known as the Indonesian Bankruptcy
Law). However, the company’s operations and creditor relationships
extended beyond Indonesia’s borders, involving significant cross-border
commercial transactions and foreign creditors, particularly in Singapore.
During the restructuring, the Singapore High Court granted a
moratorium and restructuring relief under Singapore’s insolvency laws,
which incorporate the UNCITRAL Model Law, providing temporary
protection to the company’s assets and operations within Singapore’s
jurisdiction. Despite this, the Indonesian Commercial Court did not
formally recognize or give effect to the Singapore moratorium, resulting
in conflicting judicial decisions and procedural fragmentation between
the two jurisdictions.

This lack of mutual recognition created a legal and operational impasse.

While Singapore’s moratorium aimed to facilitate an orderly
restructuring process by halting creditor enforcement actions and
preserving the company’s value, the Indonesian court’s refusal to
acknowledge this foreign relief meant that creditors in Indonesia could
continue enforcement actions, undermining the restructuring efforts and
increasing uncertainty for all stakeholders. The absence of a cross-border
insolvency framework in Indonesia thus led to parallel and potentially
contradictory insolvency proceedings, complicating the coordination of
asset management, creditor claims, and restructuring plans.

Economically, this fragmentation imposed significant costs on PT Pan

Brothers TBK and its creditors. The inability to synchronize insolvency
proceedings across borders delayed the restructuring process, increased
legal expenses, and heightened the risk of asset dissipation. Moreover,
the uncertainty surrounding creditor rights and enforcement actions
discouraged foreign investment and complicated the company’s access to
international financing, thereby exacerbating financial distress. The case
underscored how Indonesia’s domestic insolvency regime, while
adequate for purely domestic cases, is ill-equipped to handle the realities
of increasingly globalized business operations within ASEAN and beyond.

From a legal perspective, the PT Pan Brothers TBK case exposed critical
gaps in Indonesia’s insolvency law, particularly the absence of provisions
for recognizing and cooperating with foreign insolvency proceedings.
Unlike jurisdictions that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law,
Indonesia’s legal framework lacks clear mechanisms for granting access
to foreign insolvency representatives, recognizing foreign insolvency
orders, and providing cross-border relief measures such as stays on
creditor actions. This deficiency not only hampers effective restructuring
but also undermines Indonesia’s attractiveness as a jurisdiction for
international commerce and investment.

The lessons from PT Pan Brothers TBK are instructive for Indonesia’s
ongoing insolvency law reform efforts. Incorporating the UNCITRAL
Model Law’s principles—such as access, recognition, relief, and
cooperation—into Indonesia’s legal framework would enable courts to
coordinate with foreign jurisdictions, harmonize insolvency proceedings,
and protect the interests of all creditors regardless of nationality. Such
reform would reduce procedural conflicts, enhance legal certainty, and
promote efficient resolution of cross-border insolvencies, thereby
supporting Indonesia’s integration into the ASEAN Economic Community
and the global economy.

In conclusion, the PT Pan Brothers TBK case exemplifies the urgent need
for Indonesia to adopt a cross-border insolvency framework aligned with
international best practices. Without such reform, Indonesian companies
and creditors will continue to face significant legal and economic
challenges in cross-border insolvency situations, impeding restructuring
efforts and economic recovery. This case thus serves as a compelling
argument for Indonesia’s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law and for
ASEAN’s collective development of a regional insolvency model law to
address the complexities of cross-border insolvency in an increasingly
interconnected economic landscape(WongPartnership, 2019)(UNCITRAL,
1997)(ADB, 2024).

5.2 Hanjin Shipping: Efficiency through UNCITRAL

Model Law Adoption in Singapore
The bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping Co., Ltd., once the world’s seventh-
largest container shipping company, stands as a landmark case
demonstrating the operational advantages and judicial cooperation
enabled by the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border
Insolvency. Filed in 2016, Hanjin’s insolvency proceedings spanned
multiple jurisdictions, including South Korea, the United States,
Singapore, Japan, and Canada, reflecting the inherently global nature of
modern shipping enterprises and the critical need for coordinated cross-
border insolvency frameworks to manage complex multinational creditor
and asset interests effectively.

Singapore’s role in the Hanjin Shipping bankruptcy is particularly

instructive. Singapore had incorporated the UNCITRAL Model Law into
its domestic legal system through the Companies (Amendment) Act 2017,
which provided the legal foundation for the Singapore High Court to
recognize and cooperate with foreign insolvency proceedings. When
Hanjin Shipping sought relief in Singapore, the High Court granted a
temporary moratorium on creditor actions, effectively staying
enforcement proceedings and protecting the company’s assets within
Singapore’s jurisdiction. This moratorium was crucial in preventing the
seizure or liquidation of Hanjin’s assets in Singapore, thereby preserving
value and enabling an orderly restructuring process.

The Singapore High Court’s recognition of the foreign insolvency

proceedings and its willingness to grant relief under the Model Law
framework facilitated judicial cooperation and coordination with other
jurisdictions handling Hanjin’s bankruptcy. This cooperation was
essential given the company’s extensive global operations, including a
fleet of 98 ships and thousands of seafarers affected by the insolvency.
The court’s intervention helped mitigate disruptions to global supply
chains, which rely heavily on maritime transport, by allowing Hanjin to
continue limited operations and cargo deliveries during the restructuring
period. This judicial support was instrumental in minimizing economic
fallout not only for Hanjin’s creditors but also for the broader shipping
industry and international trade networks.

Comparatively, Singapore’s legal framework, underpinned by the

UNCITRAL Model Law, contrasts sharply with Indonesia’s current
insolvency regime, which lacks explicit provisions for cross-border
insolvency recognition and cooperation. Indonesia’s Law No. 37 of 2004
on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations primarily
addresses domestic insolvency matters and does not provide mechanisms
for recognizing foreign insolvency proceedings or granting cross-border
relief such as stays on creditor enforcement actions. This gap limits
Indonesia’s ability to effectively manage insolvencies involving foreign
creditors or assets, increasing legal uncertainty and procedural
inefficiencies.

The Hanjin case exemplifies the tangible benefits of adopting the

UNCITRAL Model Law: enhanced access for foreign insolvency
representatives to local courts, formal recognition of foreign insolvency
orders, and the ability to grant relief measures that preserve assets and
facilitate coordinated restructuring efforts. These elements collectively
contribute to a more predictable and efficient insolvency process, which
is vital for maintaining investor confidence and economic stability in a
globalized market. Singapore’s experience demonstrates how legal
harmonization through the Model Law can transform insolvency
proceedings from fragmented and adversarial processes into cooperative
and value-preserving endeavors.

Economically, the Hanjin bankruptcy underscored the critical importance

of cross-border insolvency frameworks in safeguarding not only the
interests of creditors but also the stability of vital economic sectors. The
shipping industry is a backbone of global trade, and disruptions caused
by insolvency proceedings can have cascading effects on supply chains,
commodity prices, and international commerce. Singapore’s proactive
legal approach helped contain these risks by enabling swift judicial
responses and coordinated asset management, thereby setting a
benchmark for other ASEAN countries, including Indonesia, to emulate.

In conclusion, the Hanjin Shipping case vividly illustrates the operational

efficiencies and economic benefits derived from Singapore’s adoption of
the UNCITRAL Model Law. It highlights the necessity for Indonesia to
modernize its insolvency laws to incorporate similar cross-border
insolvency provisions, enabling better judicial cooperation and protection
of creditor and debtor interests in an increasingly interconnected ASEAN
economic landscape. The case also reinforces the broader imperative for
ASEAN to develop a unified regional insolvency framework that can
harmonize legal standards, facilitate cross-border cooperation, and
enhance the region’s attractiveness for international investment and
trade(InsolEurope, 2018)(WongPartnership, 2019)
(PortEconomicsManagement, 2017)(Lexology, 2017).

5.3 Lehman Brothers: Global Complexity and Benefits of

International Cooperation
The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. in 2008 remains one of
the most significant and complex insolvency cases in modern financial
history, epitomizing the challenges of global cross-border insolvency and
underscoring the critical importance of international legal cooperation.
With assets totaling approximately
6 39 b i l l i on an d l i abi l i t i es ex ceed i n g619 billion at the time of filing,
Lehman Brothers’ collapse triggered a cascade of insolvency proceedings
across multiple jurisdictions, involving thousands of creditors and a vast
array of financial instruments and assets dispersed worldwide. This case
vividly illustrates the necessity for robust cross-border insolvency
frameworks that facilitate coordination, recognition, and cooperation
among courts and insolvency practitioners across borders.

The sheer scale and complexity of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy

demanded unprecedented levels of international judicial collaboration.
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New
York, where the main Chapter 11 filing occurred, coordinated with courts
in the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and other jurisdictions to manage
the administration of Lehman’s global estate. A pivotal innovation in this
process was the creation and implementation of the Lehman Brothers
Protocol, a voluntary agreement among insolvency representatives and
courts designed to streamline cooperation, avoid conflicting rulings, and
facilitate the efficient administration of the estate’s assets and creditor
claims across jurisdictions.

The Lehman Brothers Protocol established mechanisms for mutual

recognition of insolvency proceedings, coordinated asset recovery efforts,
and harmonized creditor claims processes. This protocol was
instrumental in overcoming jurisdictional fragmentation and legal
uncertainty, enabling insolvency practitioners to work collaboratively
rather than competitively. It also provided a framework for resolving
disputes over jurisdiction and priority, which are common obstacles in
cross-border insolvencies. The success of this protocol has since been
regarded as a model for international insolvency cooperation, influencing
subsequent reforms and the development of cross-border insolvency laws
worldwide.

Despite these advances, the Lehman case also exposed significant

challenges inherent in global insolvency proceedings. The complexity of
Lehman’s corporate structure, the diversity of applicable legal regimes,
and the volume of claims—estimated at over $1.2 trillion—created
enormous administrative burdens. Asset tracing and recovery were
complicated by differing national laws on insolvency priorities, creditor
rights, and procedural rules. Moreover, the absence of a universally
binding legal framework meant that cooperation relied heavily on
voluntary protocols and judicial goodwill, which, while effective in this
case, may not be replicable in all insolvency scenarios.

Comparing the Lehman Brothers case to Indonesia’s current insolvency

framework reveals stark contrasts. Indonesia’s Law No. 37 of 2004 on
Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations primarily
addresses domestic insolvency and lacks explicit provisions for
recognizing foreign insolvency proceedings or facilitating cross-border
cooperation. This absence of a statutory framework for cross-border
insolvency means that Indonesia is ill-prepared to handle insolvencies
involving multinational corporations or foreign creditors, increasing the
risk of conflicting judgments, asset dissipation, and protracted litigation.
In contrast, the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency,
which underpinned the cooperation mechanisms in the Lehman case,
provides clear legal tools for access, recognition, relief, and cooperation
among jurisdictions, thereby reducing uncertainty and enhancing the
efficiency of cross-border insolvency resolution.

The Lehman Brothers bankruptcy has had a profound influence on

international insolvency law and practice. It highlighted the necessity of
harmonized legal frameworks and cooperative protocols to manage the
complexities of global insolvencies effectively. The case accelerated
efforts by international organizations, including UNCITRAL, to promote
the adoption of the Model Law and inspired jurisdictions worldwide to
reform their insolvency laws to better accommodate cross-border cases.
For Indonesia and ASEAN, the lessons from Lehman underscore the
urgency of adopting and implementing comprehensive cross-border
insolvency frameworks to safeguard economic stability, protect creditor
rights, and foster investor confidence in an increasingly interconnected
global economy.

In conclusion, the Lehman Brothers case exemplifies both the challenges

and the potential of international cooperation in cross-border insolvency.
It demonstrates how coordinated legal frameworks and protocols can
mitigate the risks of jurisdictional conflicts and inefficiencies inherent in
multinational insolvencies. For Indonesia, aligning its insolvency laws
with the UNCITRAL Model Law principles would represent a significant
step toward addressing these challenges. Moreover, for ASEAN, the case
reinforces the imperative to develop a regional insolvency model law that
facilitates judicial cooperation, harmonizes legal standards, and supports
the region’s economic integration and resilience in the face of global
financial disruptions(Investopedia, 2024)(SanDiego, 2014)(NewYorkFed,
2014)(Yale, 2019)(UNCITRAL, 1997).

5.4 Comparative Analysis of Indonesia's Legal

Framework and the UNCITRAL Model Law
A comprehensive comparative analysis between Indonesia’s current
insolvency laws and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border
Insolvency reveals significant divergences that critically impact the
effectiveness of cross-border insolvency resolution. Indonesia’s Law No.
37 of 2004 on Bankruptcy and Suspension of Debt Payment Obligations
primarily addresses domestic insolvency issues and lacks explicit
provisions for cross-border cooperation, recognition, and relief. In
contrast, the UNCITRAL Model Law, adopted by many jurisdictions
worldwide, including Singapore, provides a structured legal framework
designed to facilitate international judicial cooperation, streamline
insolvency proceedings involving multiple jurisdictions, and protect the
interests of creditors and debtors in cross-border insolvencies.

The Model Law is built around four fundamental pillars: access,

recognition, relief, and cooperation. Access grants foreign insolvency
representatives the right to participate in domestic insolvency
proceedings, enabling them to protect the debtor’s assets and interests
within the jurisdiction. Recognition involves the formal acknowledgment
of foreign insolvency proceedings by domestic courts, which is essential
to harmonize concurrent insolvency processes and avoid conflicting
rulings. Relief empowers courts to grant provisional or permanent
measures, such as stays on creditor actions, to preserve assets and
facilitate restructuring. Cooperation mandates active communication and
coordination between courts and insolvency practitioners across borders
to ensure efficient administration of insolvency cases.
Indonesia’s current legal framework falls short in all these areas. It does
not provide clear mechanisms for foreign insolvency representatives to
gain access to Indonesian courts, nor does it mandate recognition of
foreign insolvency proceedings. This gap was starkly illustrated in the PT
Pan Brothers TBK case, where the Indonesian Commercial Court refused
to recognize the Singapore High Court’s moratorium, leading to
conflicting judicial decisions and procedural fragmentation. Without
statutory provisions for cross-border relief, Indonesian courts cannot
grant stays on creditor enforcement actions initiated abroad,
undermining restructuring efforts and increasing legal uncertainty.
Furthermore, the absence of mandated cooperation protocols limits
judicial dialogue and coordination, resulting in inefficiencies and
prolonged insolvency processes.

The practical consequences of these deficiencies are profound.

Indonesian companies engaged in international commerce face
heightened risks of asset dissipation, creditor disputes, and protracted
litigation when insolvency proceedings span multiple jurisdictions.
Foreign creditors may be reluctant to invest or extend credit due to
uncertainties about their rights and the enforceability of foreign
insolvency orders. This legal vacuum diminishes Indonesia’s
attractiveness as a business hub within ASEAN and the global economy,
where cross-border transactions are increasingly prevalent.

Adopting the UNCITRAL Model Law would address these shortcomings

by embedding internationally recognized principles into Indonesia’s
insolvency regime. It would enable Indonesian courts to grant access to
foreign insolvency representatives, recognize foreign proceedings, and
provide relief measures that preserve assets and facilitate coordinated
restructuring. The Model Law’s emphasis on cooperation would foster
judicial dialogue and information sharing, reducing conflicts and
enhancing procedural efficiency. Such reforms would align Indonesia
with global best practices, improve legal certainty, and strengthen
investor confidence.

However, adopting the Model Law also presents challenges. Indonesia

would need to undertake comprehensive legislative reforms, judicial
training, and capacity building to implement the Model Law effectively.
There may be resistance from stakeholders accustomed to the current
domestic-focused system, and harmonizing the Model Law with existing
national laws requires careful legal drafting to avoid conflicts.
Additionally, Indonesia must develop institutional frameworks to support
cross-border cooperation, including mechanisms for communication
between courts and insolvency practitioners.

The benefits, however, outweigh these challenges. The Hanjin Shipping

case exemplifies how Singapore’s adoption of the Model Law facilitated
efficient judicial cooperation, asset preservation, and minimized
economic disruption. Similarly, the Lehman Brothers insolvency
demonstrated the critical role of international protocols and recognition
in managing complex global insolvencies. For Indonesia, embracing the
Model Law would not only resolve procedural inefficiencies but also
enhance its integration into ASEAN’s economic community and the
global financial system.

In conclusion, the comparative analysis underscores that Indonesia’s

current insolvency laws are inadequate for the demands of cross-border
insolvency resolution. The UNCITRAL Model Law offers a
comprehensive, tested framework that addresses key legal gaps in
access, recognition, relief, and cooperation. Adopting and adapting this
Model Law is imperative for Indonesia to modernize its insolvency
regime, protect creditor and debtor interests, and foster a more
predictable and efficient insolvency environment in line with ASEAN’s
regional integration goals and global economic realities(UNCITRAL,
1997)(WongPartnership, 2019)(ADB, 2024)(InsolEurope, 2018)
(SanDiego, 2014).

5.5 Challenges and Implications for ASEAN Regional

Legal Reform
The ASEAN region faces profound challenges in harmonizing cross-
border insolvency laws, stemming from the diverse legal traditions,
economic disparities, and varying levels of institutional development
among its member states. Unlike more integrated economic blocs,
ASEAN’s legal landscape is characterized by a patchwork of national
insolvency regimes, many of which remain primarily domestic in scope
and lack explicit provisions for cross-border insolvency cooperation. This
fragmentation creates significant obstacles for effective resolution of
insolvency cases involving multiple jurisdictions, undermining investor
confidence and impeding the region’s economic integration goals.

One of the foremost challenges is the legal heterogeneity across ASEAN

countries. While some jurisdictions, such as Singapore, have adopted the
UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, others, including
Indonesia, have yet to incorporate comprehensive cross-border
insolvency frameworks. This disparity results in inconsistent recognition
of foreign insolvency proceedings, divergent procedural rules, and
conflicting judicial decisions, as vividly illustrated by the PT Pan Brothers
TBK case. The absence of a unified legal framework complicates
coordination among courts and insolvency practitioners, leading to
inefficiencies, increased costs, and prolonged insolvency processes that
can erode asset value and creditor recoveries.

Moreover, ASEAN’s economic integration, exemplified by the ASEAN

Economic Community (AEC), has accelerated cross-border trade,
investment, and corporate activities, thereby increasing the frequency
and complexity of cross-border insolvencies. However, the legal
infrastructure has not kept pace with this economic reality. Without a
harmonized insolvency model law tailored to ASEAN’s unique economic
and legal context, companies and creditors face uncertainty and legal
risks when insolvency proceedings span multiple member states. This
gap threatens to undermine the region’s attractiveness as a destination
for foreign direct investment and cross-border commercial ventures.

The case studies analyzed in this chapter underscore the critical need for
ASEAN to develop a regional insolvency model law that balances
harmonization with respect for national legal traditions. Such a
framework should incorporate the core principles of the UNCITRAL
Model Law—access, recognition, relief, and cooperation—while adapting
to ASEAN’s specific economic integration objectives and legal diversity.
A regional model law would provide a consistent legal foundation for
managing cross-border insolvencies, facilitating judicial dialogue, and
enabling coordinated restructuring efforts that preserve value and
protect creditor rights across borders.

Implementing a regional insolvency framework also entails significant

institutional and capacity-building challenges. ASEAN member states
must invest in training judges, insolvency practitioners, and regulators to
understand and apply cross-border insolvency principles effectively.
Establishing mechanisms for information sharing, judicial cooperation,
and dispute resolution will be essential to operationalize the framework.
Furthermore, political will and consensus-building among member states
are crucial to overcome sovereignty concerns and legal pluralism that
may hinder harmonization efforts.

The implications of the case studies for ASEAN cooperation are profound.
The PT Pan Brothers TBK case highlights the risks of legal fragmentation
and the economic costs of uncoordinated insolvency proceedings. The
Hanjin Shipping case demonstrates the tangible benefits of adopting the
UNCITRAL Model Law, including enhanced judicial cooperation and
economic stability. The Lehman Brothers insolvency exemplifies the
necessity of international protocols and coordinated legal frameworks to
manage complex global insolvencies effectively. Together, these cases
provide compelling evidence that ASEAN’s future economic resilience
depends on its ability to establish a unified, regionally coherent
insolvency legal framework.

Policy recommendations for ASEAN include prioritizing the development

and adoption of a regional insolvency model law that aligns with
international best practices while accommodating regional specificities.
ASEAN should foster judicial dialogue platforms and cross-border
cooperation mechanisms to facilitate consistent application and
interpretation of insolvency laws. Capacity-building initiatives should be
expanded to equip legal professionals with the expertise needed for
cross-border insolvency cases. Additionally, ASEAN could explore
establishing a regional insolvency coordination body to oversee
implementation and resolve jurisdictional conflicts.

In conclusion, the harmonization of cross-border insolvency laws within

ASEAN is not merely a legal technicality but a strategic imperative for
sustaining economic integration, attracting investment, and ensuring
financial stability in an increasingly interconnected region. The lessons
drawn from the case studies underscore the urgency and feasibility of
this reform. By embracing a regional insolvency model law and fostering
cooperative legal frameworks, ASEAN can transform cross-border
insolvency from a source of legal uncertainty and economic risk into a
mechanism for orderly restructuring and economic resilience, thereby
advancing its vision of a truly integrated and competitive economic
community(ASEAN, 2024)(UNCITRAL, 1997)(ADB, 2024)
(WongPartnership, 2019).

References
1. UNCITRAL, 1997.
https://uncitral.un.org/en/texts/insolvency/modellaw/cross-
border_insolvency

2. WongPartnership, 2019.
https://www.wongpartnership.com/upload/medias/KnowledgeInsight/doc
ument/15585/IndonesiaUpdate_PositiveDevelopmentsinSingapore-
IndonesiaCross-BorderRestructurings.PDF

3. InsolEurope, 2018.
https://www.insol-europe.org/download/documents/1532

4. ADB, 2024. https://lpr.adb.org/sites/default/files/2024-08/FINAL

%20Insolvency%20Post-Conference%20Booklet%20-%20For
%20Upload.pdf

5. PortEconomicsManagement, 2017.
https://porteconomicsmanagement.org/pemp/contents/part10/port-
resilience/hanjin-shipping-bankruptcy/

6. Lexology, 2017. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?

g=c5f03f80-88af-4b43-ad25-c846ff9f5d92

7. Investopedia, 2024.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/lehman-brothers-
collapse.asp

8. SanDiego, 2014. https://digital.sandiego.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

article=1101&context=ilj

9. NewYorkFed, 2014.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/epr/2014/1412
flem.pdf

10. Yale, 2019. https://elischolar.library.yale.edu/journal-of-financial-

crises/vol1/iss1/2/

11. ASEAN, 2024. https://asean.org/storage/2024/01/ASEAN-Economic-

Community-Report-2024.pdf