[PASSED] International Bankruptcy Protocol

[Richonne]

Oppose.

If you owe someone you pay them period. Failure to pay in Richonne gives the creditor the right to ask the courts to impose a 90% lien on all income. If you flea you will be hunted down and dragged back, you will be jailed for evasion and all property will be confiscated and sold at auction, any Zombies left over after paying off your creditors will then go to the government coffers.

[Separatist Peoples]

Oppose.

If you owe someone you pay them period. Failure to pay in Richonne gives the creditor the right to ask the courts to impose a 90% lien on all income. If you flea you will be hunted down and dragged back, you will be jailed for evasion and all property will be confiscated and sold at auction, any Zombies left over after paying off your creditors will then go to the government coffers.

"Ambassador, since you seem to lack any useful conception of bankruptcy policy, and because you have no interest in useful conversation, neither your opinion nor your vote is wanted. If you must be heard, I suppose I could lend you empty glass bottles to slap together. The resulting din would be just as productive."

[Separatist Peoples]

Ooc: since nobody does research, I updated the OP.

[Separatist Peoples]

Bump

[Christian Democrats]

First, may you extend section 6(a)'s exemption for unpaid taxes to all unpaid government debts, including tax penalties and fines?

Second, will you drop the term "res judicata effect" and replace it with "preclusive effect"?

There's no need to be showy, Ambassador.

[Separatist Peoples]

First, may you extend section 6(a)'s exemption for unpaid taxes to all unpaid government debts, including tax penalties and fines?

Second, will you drop the term "res judicata effect" and replace it with "preclusive effect"?

There's no need to be showy, Ambassador.

"I am unsure that I want to extend protection for fines and penalties beyond the underlying amount at the risk of addressing other creditors, as that would incentivize government use of fines to harangue creditors. However, I cannot say that this concern is terribly great. I'd be willing to discuss it further. In light of many states' willingness to use taxation powers with a less than even hand, why ought government fines and penalties not be stayed pending a reasonable restructuring period?

"Your second point is well taken, and I will remove res judicata in my next pass of edits."

Ooc: I know I keep not submitting this. Life keeps...life-ing. I really want to submit it, promise!

[Graintfjall]

“We hope the Separatist delegation have invested in headache medication given the tenor of this debate if this is pushed to a vote,” Júlía Maria observes with a wry smile.

“As to substantive comment I’m afraid we have little as this is a frustratingly solid draft.

“Two questions. First, I’m confused by the wording of Article 9. a time limit on the number … what does that mean in practice? That they can set a time limit within which a certain number of claims can be enforced? It seems to mix…” Júlía Maria fumbles for the proper wording, “…properties? To conflate both ‘time’ and ‘number’. But it may not matter if the meaning is clear and simply escaping this doddery old economist.

“Second. After setting out the definitions, the resolution proceeds to discuss a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. Here’s my concern, admittedly more hypothetical at this stage. What if a foreign bankruptcy lacks procedural fairness (setting aside, for the moment, the question of how that could given all the various legal fairness resolutions the General Assembly has passed)? We don’t have a harmonized bankruptcy code and it is conceivable that another country’s bankruptcy laws are not procedurally fair. Is this a valid concern, or is it something that, in concert with those other resolutions on legal fairness, is unlikely to arise?

“We’re really reaching for something to oppose for no reason than to dust the cobwebs off, and as written this would likely have our support – subject to the back-office gremlins giving it a fine-tooth going over.”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir
Economic Advisor to the Græntfjall WA Mission

[Jutsa]

OOC: DW, IRL > NS always. I look forward to voting FOR this when it makes it to vote.

[Separatist Peoples]

“Two questions. First, I’m confused by the wording of Article 9. a time limit on the number … what does that mean in practice? That they can set a time limit within which a certain number of claims can be enforced? It seems to mix…” Júlía Maria fumbles for the proper wording, “…properties? To conflate both ‘time’ and ‘number’. But it may not matter if the meaning is clear and simply escaping this doddery old economist.

"My intent is to allow nations to bar repeat bankruptcy claims by a party within too short a time. In the C.D.S.P., for example, there is a moratorium of 7 year period in which an individual may not file for bankruptcy under the same chapter. I don't mean to drone on about C.D.S.P. legalisms, but there are five different kinds of bankruptcy, and it is theoretically possible to file under a different chapter and follow different rules, but this is not always the case elsewhere. Suffice to say, it is to allow nations to take measures preventing repeated bankruptcy claims to the detriment of bona fide creditors."

“Second. After setting out the definitions, the resolution proceeds to discuss a foreign bankruptcy proceeding. Here’s my concern, admittedly more hypothetical at this stage. What if a foreign bankruptcy lacks procedural fairness (setting aside, for the moment, the question of how that could given all the various legal fairness resolutions the General Assembly has passed)? We don’t have a harmonized bankruptcy code and it is conceivable that another country’s bankruptcy laws are not procedurally fair. Is this a valid concern, or is it something that, in concert with those other resolutions on legal fairness, is unlikely to arise?

"That is eminently reasonable as a concern, and one that I considered. I decided that, regardless of the subjective fairness of a procedure (after all, a communist country may consider no creditor protection fair), where the substantial part of a collection of assets remains in one nation, it is eminently more efficient to enforce that nation's law over a smaller part of assets that are, by mere happenstance, in another nation. As such, creditors needn't worry about a debtor using foreign jurisdictions to conceal assets and frustrate the lending process, which disincentivizes otherwise manageable risk. It also allows debtors to initiate only one complicated proceeding, allowing them to avail themselves of bankruptcy protections more readily.

"That unjust laws may be applied beyond their jurisdiction is a risk, but I consider that the harm of those laws being enforced is outweighed by the greater risk of nations either refusing comity, thus requiring multi-jurisdictional proceedings as a hindrance to both debtors and creditors, or selectively enforcing foreign laws in a way that makes the process entirely uncertain for all parties involved."

“We’re really reaching for something to oppose for no reason than to dust the cobwebs off, and as written this would likely have our support – subject to the back-office gremlins giving it a fine-tooth going over.”

"Given the lack of genuine substantive debate on this, ambassador, I do not begrudge you the review at all."

[Graintfjall]

Welp, I gave it my best shot. But you're literally a lawyer and I'm literally not, so no way I'll be able to go toe-to-toe with you on this.

“Thank you for the response. We will consider our position but absent any stronger argument our delegation is unlikely to oppose this measure – and probably just as unlikely to stick around for the debate. Gangi þér vel!”

-- Júlía Maria Jónsdóttir

[Attancia]

No, fuck the poor.

[Barfleur]

No, fuck the poor.

What a constructive, thought-out response.
Besides, it isn't just the poor who go bankrupt.
From Snopes: "Many of the United States’ largest and most prominent businesses have filed for (and emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection one or more times, including General Motors, Charter Communications, Delta Air Lines, Kmart, Macy’s, and the Texas Rangers baseball team."

[Attancia]

No, fuck the poor.

It isn't just the poor who go bankrupt.
From Snopes: "Many of the United States’ largest and most prominent businesses have filed for (and emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection one or more times, including General Motors, Charter Communications, Delta Air Lines, Kmart, Macy’s, and the Texas Rangers baseball team."

Fuck the poor specifically.

[Barfleur]

It isn't just the poor who go bankrupt.
From Snopes: "Many of the United States’ largest and most prominent businesses have filed for (and emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection one or more times, including General Motors, Charter Communications, Delta Air Lines, Kmart, Macy’s, and the Texas Rangers baseball team."

Fuck the poor specifically.

Even if a poor person files for bankruptcy with less frequency than a business?

[Attancia]

Fuck the poor specifically.

Even if a poor person files for bankruptcy with less frequency than a business?

They're poor, so fuck them.

[Barfleur]

Even if a poor person files for bankruptcy with less frequency than a business?

They're poor, so fuck them.

"I echo the sentiments of the Separatist Ambassador"

Oppose.

If you owe someone you pay them period. Failure to pay in Richonne gives the creditor the right to ask the courts to impose a 90% lien on all income. If you flea you will be hunted down and dragged back, you will be jailed for evasion and all property will be confiscated and sold at auction, any Zombies left over after paying off your creditors will then go to the government coffers.

"Ambassador, since you seem to lack any useful conception of bankruptcy policy, and because you have no interest in useful conversation, neither your opinion nor your vote is wanted. If you must be heard, I suppose I could lend you empty glass bottles to slap together. The resulting din would be just as productive."

[Attancia]

They're poor, so fuck them.

"I echo the sentiments of the Separatist Ambassador"

First of all, I'm OOC. Secondly, I don't know if you can tell, but I'm being ironic. It should be obvious.

[Separatist Peoples]

"I echo the sentiments of the Separatist Ambassador"

First of all, I'm OOC. Secondly, I don't know if you can tell, but I'm being ironic. It should be obvious.

Ooc: one post? Maybe. Several? Unlikely.

This is an IC forum. if you want to spout drivel about hating the poor OOCly, go to General. If you want to do it as a WA Ambassador, do me a solid and just don't. Not on my drafting thread.

[Giovenith]

No, fuck the poor.

It isn't just the poor who go bankrupt.
From Snopes: "Many of the United States’ largest and most prominent businesses have filed for (and emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection one or more times, including General Motors, Charter Communications, Delta Air Lines, Kmart, Macy’s, and the Texas Rangers baseball team."

Fuck the poor specifically.

Even if a poor person files for bankruptcy with less frequency than a business?

They're poor, so fuck them.

"I echo the sentiments of the Separatist Ambassador"

First of all, I'm OOC. Secondly, I don't know if you can tell, but I'm being ironic. It should be obvious.

First of all, no you're not. You're just breaking the rules. Despite what the pseudo-satirists of the internet would have you believe, "irony" does not mean behaving as unpleasantly as you desire and then scoffing and rolling your eyes when people have the reasonable negative reaction to it. That's certainly not how it works here. Second of all, this is an IC thread, either engage properly don't post here.

Unofficial warning for spam and trolling. Take the time to read the rules and understand the forum mechanics, or you will have a short visit on this website.

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: This has been submitted.

[Kenmoria]

“This seems to be a well-written and sensible measure. It has my support.”

[Barfleur]

"I intend to fully support this once it comes to vote."

OOC: Maybe change [DRAFT] to [SUBMITTED]

[Comfed]

“Ambassador, this proposal threatens the integrity of isolationist socialism. Opposed.”

[Separatist Peoples]

“Ambassador, this proposal threatens the integrity of isolationist socialism. Opposed.”

"Ambassador, if your nation is isolationist, how will foreign debtors and creditors have done business with your people in the first place?"

[Comfed]

“Ambassador, this proposal threatens the integrity of isolationist socialism. Opposed.”

"Ambassador, if your nation is isolationist, how will foreign debtors and creditors have done business with your people in the first place?"

“Perhaps I should correct an error in my statement. Our nation is socialist, to be sure, but we are not fully isolationist. If people are insolvent in our country we would prefer to retain the right to go after them.”