(a) In relation to each type of insolvency procedure available in the legal system of this economy, to what extent are the claims of foreign creditors recognised in the context of administration of that procedure?

No difference between domestic creditors and foreign creditors in Corporate Reorganization Law (Article 3), but Bankruptcy Law requires reciprocity (Article 2).

(b) What principles or rules apply to the recognition and admission of claims by foreign creditors? (for example

(i) Are claims by foreign creditors subject to particular rules in relation to priority of payment?

Ditto.

(ii) Do foreign creditors have to satisfy special or additional requirements in order for their claims to be admitted?)

Ditto.

(c) What law is applied to establish the validity of foreign claims?

This matter will be dealt with by international private law on case-by-case basis.

(a) To what extent does the insolvency law of this economy claim jurisdiction over assets of a corporate debtor situated abroad?

Bankruptcy Law

The effect of bankruptcy covers only the assets which the corporate debtor owns in Japan (Article 3). However the administrator can collect assets which are located abroad, since the administrator duly represents the debtor company and in such capacity he can collect assets. Once the administrator has successfully collected assets and brought them into Japan, the assets would belong to the bankruptcy estates.

Almost same is applicable to other insolvency procedures (Corporate Reorganization LawArticle 4, Composition Law Article 11).

(a) To what extent do the rules of private international law of the legal system of this economy recognise insolvency procedures commenced in foreign jurisdictions?

Although there is no provision to clearly recognize insolvency procedures commenced in foreign jurisdiction, there are court precedents recognizing a foreignadministrator's power to manage and dispose assets in Japan and also in practice cooperation between a Japanese administrator and a foreign administrator is expected in parallel insolvency proceedings. Japanese law has no provision as to ancillary proceedings like USA Bankruptcy Law 304.

(b) Under what circumstances, if any, may orders or judgments resulting from foreign insolvency procedures or administrations be recognized or enforced in the legal system of this economy?

It is necessary to file insolvency proceedings in Japan also. In such parallel insolvency both administrators would discuss on any way to realize the effect of foreign orders in Japanese insolvency proceedings appropriately on case-by-case basis. Japanese Civil Procedure Law has a general provision as to recognition of foreign judgements. Availability of such provision may be considered depending on the case.

(a) What recognition is accorded in the legal system of this economy to the status and capacity of insolvency administrators (for example trustees, liquidators, receivers) appointed in foreign insolvency procedures?

If the insolvency administrators appointed in foreign insolvency procedures have power to represent the debtor company, the Japanese court would recognize such capacity.

(b) To what extent are foreign insolvency administrators entitled to claim, take control of, and realise or deal with property of the corporate debtor situated within the jurisdiction of the legal system of this economy?

If the foreign insolvency administrators as a representative of the corporate debtor are entitled to claim, take control of, and realize or deal with property of the corporate debtor, the Japanese court would basically recognize such capacity. However, due to the principle of localism (Bankruptcy Law Article 3-2) it will be impossible to directly extend other effects of foreign bankruptcy to the bankrupt's assets located in Japan.

(a) To what extent does the legal system of this economy recognise the validity of rights of security asserted by foreign creditors over assets of the corporate debtor?

Basically the same position as domestic secured creditors.

(b) Are any special rules applicable to determine the validity, extent and ranking of such security rights?

No.

(a) To which international conventions having some application in insolvency matters is this economy a party?

No.

(b) When were these conventions entered into, and what other states are parties?

N/A

(c) What observations can be made about the practical results achieved under these international instruments?

N/A

(a) Are there any other particular issues or special problems in the field of cross-border insolvency, not included in the answers supplied above, which have presented themselves before the courts of the legal system of this economy?

No

(a) Is the government of this economy aware of the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency, approved by the United Nations in June 1997?

Yes.

(b) If so, are you aware of whether the government has any proposals to enact the terms of the model law?

No