Reconsidering Procedural Consolidation for Multinational Corporate Groups in the Context of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation

Procedural consolidation, as a solution to the rescue of insolvent multinational corporate groups (‘MCGs’), is said to be able to preserve group value for creditors. This article explores the desirability of procedural consolidation in the EU in the light of theories of corporate rescue law, cross‐border insolvency law, multinational enterprises and relevant EU cases with reference to the European Insolvency Regulation. It argues that, based on current cross‐border insolvency rules in the EU, there is an inherent difficulty for procedural consolidation in balancing the goal of preservation of group value and the goal of certainty. The article also considers the new ‘group procedural coordination proceedings’ offered by the Recast European Insolvency Regulation and argues that it may help to supplement the gap left by the procedural consolidation in the EU. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The effectiveness and efficiency of corporate insolvency law—part two

Little empirical research has been done in the Netherlands (or internationally) into the effect of corporate insolvency proceedings. The Dutch legislature has made several attempts in the past decades to revise the current Dutch Bankruptcy Act (Faillissementswet) of 1893, while almost nothing is known about the effectiveness and efficiency of the Dutch corporate insolvency law. I have studied the effectiveness of the current Dutch insolvency law and of European Directive 2001/23/EC which is incorporated in this law, on the basis of theoretical and large‐scale empirical research. The study concerned all 4167 of the corporate insolvencies that ended in 2004. In the first part of this Article (International Insolvency Review, Volume 17, 3, Winter 2008, pp. 189–209), the research results showed that the Dutch Bankruptcy Act achieved the goals set on it only to a limited degree and that the informal restructuring procedure is of great social importance. In this second part, I concentrate on the conditions imposed by European Directive 2001/23/EC on the European national legislatures to protect employees' rights: automatic transfer of employment contracts in the event of transfers as part of insolvency proceedings, together with measures to prevent misuse of insolvency proceedings in such a way as to deprive employees of the rights provided for in this European Directive. The study shows that, in the Netherlands, not applying automatic transfer of employment contracts when an undertaking or business is transferred as part of an insolvency proceeding does not result in large‐scale misuse of insolvency law. It appears that automatic transfer of employment contracts outside insolvency proceedings can actually impede the informal restructuring of financially unsound companies. These surprising results are interesting for corporate insolvency proceedings worldwide. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Studies in Convergence? Post‐Crisis Effects on Corporate Rescue and the Influence of Social Policy: The EU and the USA

The financial crisis and the sovereign debt crisis that it precipitated in a number of peripheral EU Member States heralded massive changes in insolvency, corporate rescue and employment protection policies. The US and the EU both suffered greatly in the wake of the crisis, but their recoveries have occurred along very different tracks. The US has managed to regain much of its position in terms of relative growth and the UK has outpaced the recoveries of those European countries that are members of the European Monetary Union. The purpose of this treatise is to explore the context of the 2007–2008 financial crisis in the US and in the EU and its impact on legal reform in corporate rescue and restructuring as well as those aspects of social policy implicated within insolvency systems (notably collective redundancy and transfers of undertakings). It will also consider whether or not the corporate rescue and employee protection systems can be seen to be converging, and whether, in view of the different socio‐economic, political and cultural aspects of the US and the EU, such convergence might be beneficial. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

INSOL Europe's Proposals on Groups of Companies (in Cross‐Border Insolvency): A Critical Appraisal

International bodies have started addressing the problem of cross‐border insolvency of corporate groups fairly recently. The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law has adopted a set of recommendations and the European Commission may tackle the matter in the near future, in the process of revising the European Insolvency Regulation (the ‘Regulation’). It is, therefore, timely to evaluate major proposals for the Regulation's amendment regarding groups, suggested by INSOL Europe. The paper critically evaluates the proposals regarding coordination of group cases and the concept of substantive consolidation. This evaluation takes account of both the variety of possible group structures and the goals the insolvency regime would aim to achieve. Copyright © 2012 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The ancillary insolvency proceeding

The main legal acts on International Insolvency Law (the European Regulation, the UNCITRAL Model Act and the European Convention on Certain International Aspects of Bankruptcy) lay down several local proceedings with substantive effects as regards the debtor, the distribution of proceeds and the ranking of claims. These—full—proceedings are characterized by a high degree of unpredictability and prove to be inadequate for creditors. These are the reasons why, as an immediate solution, the existing insolvency rules should be reinterpreted according to a certain logic of the market. However, such revision would only partially and provisionally solve the inconveniences of the current model. The true and ‘unsolvable’ problem is that even though the full local proceeding is based on international assistance, it alters the substantive insolvency rules. Therefore, in future it would be necessary to create a truly ancillary proceeding. Such a proceeding would not have any substantive effect as regards the debtor, the creditors and third parties, nor would it require any kind of distribution of proceeds and ranking of claims. However, this proceeding would enable to provide procedural assistance to foreign courts and procedural protection to local creditors. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparative Analysis of the Informal Pre‐Insolvency Procedures of the UK and France

The aim of this paper is to provide a brief overview of the informal pre‐insolvency proceedings available in the UK and France. In addition, the aim is to provide a comparative analysis of the approach taken towards corporate rescue at this early stage by the ‘key players’ in insolvency. In particular, emphasis will be placed on the role of insolvency practitioners and creditors as well as the involvement of the courts in pre‐insolvency restructurings. Finally, the paper considers the effectiveness of the pre‐insolvency mechanisms available in the two jurisdictions and assesses whether or not these promote and encourage a corporate rescue culture. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Harmonisation of European Insolvency Law and the Need to Tackle Two Common Problems: Common Pool and Anticommons

Insolvency law has finally become a field of law for which harmonisation at a European level is considered both important and feasible. In deciding upon the content of such harmonised rules, there will need to be a common understanding about the goals of insolvency law and, therefore, a European debate on bankruptcy theory. Bankruptcy theory, and most notably the influential creditors' bargain theory, has long viewed insolvency law as a set of rules for overcoming common pool problems. Bankruptcy theory thus far has almost completely overlooked anticommons problems. Anticommons present themselves in a situation in which there are several owners or entitled parties, and each of the parties has it within its power to block the use by others. Should anticommons behaviour in insolvency procedures go unchecked, creditors as a whole will be harmed. Insolvency is a collective process, and this process may not be sabotaged by a single party. Four typical insolvency issues, each identified by INSOL Europe as a candidate for harmonisation at a European level, are discussed, analysing them in terms of common pool problems and anticommons: preferences, reorganisation/composition plans, claim validation and insolvency of a group of companies. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

What is in a Name? Group Coordination or Consolidation Plan—What is Allowed Under the EIR Recast?

The European Insolvency Regulation Recast allows for group coordination proceedings if insolvency proceedings have been opened against different companies belonging to a single group. Group coordination proceedings imply the drafting of a group coordination plan in order to define an integrated solution to the group's problems. This plan shall not include recommendations as to any consolidation of proceedings or insolvency estates. Against the backdrop of the evolving notion of ‘procedural consolidation’ and the fact the insolvency practitioners and courts concerned have to cooperate and communicate with each other, this prohibition is misplaced and should be interpreted to mean only that main or secondary proceedings opened in a member state cannot be transferred to another jurisdiction. The effective administration of insolvency proceedings of related group companies often demands an integrated solution to the group's problems, which will inevitably lead to some form of consolidation. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Determining the insolvent estate – A comparative analysis

This article is part of a comparative research project in which the provisions of several different jurisdictions concerning the determination of the insolvent estate are examined. In particular, this part of the project examines those provisions which enable the administrator of the insolvent estate to seek to increase the size of the estate by (a) setting aside pre‐insolvency transactions and (b) seeking compensation from those who allegedly were negligent or fraudulent in the management of the debtor prior to the onset of the latter's insolvency. The overall purpose of the research study is to establish a basis for the possible substantive harmonization of the different provisions in those countries, which constitute the European Union. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Funding corporate rescue: the Impact of the financial crisis

Insolvency reform across many jurisdictions over the last twenty years has focused on the development of legislation to facilitate business reorganizations. However, any regime which involves rescue requires a degree of support from the commercial environment. The rescue regimes may therefore be severely tested in situations where there is a general economic downturn such as the world has experienced in the last two years. This article evaluates empirically the perceived impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the opportunities for rescue on the basis of a survey we set out among insolvency professionals worldwide. Most of the 562 respondents to the survey from 56 jurisdictions agree that the credit crisis of 2007 stifled the access of distressed business to financial facilities so needed for successful restructuring. It retrenched the access to financial facilities and thus impacted negatively the prospects for preventing or even ending the bankruptcy procedure with reorganization instead of winding up of the estate assets. Several reasons that have been pointed out by the insolvency professionals in our survey are discussed in this article. We conclude that somewhat paradoxically just when rescue is needed the most, the practical reality may be that businesses will not be saved if there is insufficient support available either by way of additional credit or because other (funding) creditors are so financially stressed themselves that they are unable or unwilling to support any potential rescue. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Various Aspects to Consider with Regard to Special Insolvency Rules for Small and Medium‐Sized Enterprises in South Africa

The notion of special insolvency rules for small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs) has attracted attention in international spheres, and within the ambit of some international and comparative approaches, same is considered in this article with particular focus on the South African position. In particular, we show that the South African insolvency regime does not, at present, cater for financially distressed small businesses in a specific and viable manner. In South Africa, although attention has been paid to the development and support of small businesses, similar considerations have not been observed with regard to the insolvency side of small business concerns. No comprehensive and focused process of dealing with financially distressed small businesses exists in the South African insolvency framework. This scenario prevails, notwithstanding that there are existing foreign and international policy guidelines, rules and regimes in developed jurisdictions that can serve as pointers in this regard. The purpose of this article is to first highlight the need for special treatment of small businesses by focusing on the shortcomings in the South African system, and, as a natural sequential development, policy proposals as unavoidable foundations to address these shortcomings. In the premises, the focus is on the principles and policies that are relevant to any discussion regarding insolvent businesses that fall within the scope of the SME category. Therefore, this paper deals with the concept of the small business, the South African insolvency regime and the international position pertaining to small businesses. In particular, the need for special treatment of SMEs under insolvent circumstances is discussed, consideration is given to the existing South African mechanisms available to small businesses in distress and the lack of suitable contextual provisions for small businesses in distress is noted. A core component of this article is the position in South Africa viewed against the backdrop of some international developments, international documents and principles that are relevant to an insolvency and rescue/rehabilitation regime within the context of the small business. As a logical conclusion, recommendations for reform of the South African regime are made. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Paradigm shift from a liquidation culture to a corporate rescue culture in Malaysia: A legal review

The company law landscape in Malaysia has witnessed a significant change in its insolvency law with the adoption of two new corporate rescue mechanisms, the corporate voluntary arrangement and judicial management under the Companies Act 2016 (CA 2016), which has repealed the Companies Act 1965 (CA 1965). Previously, the insolvency laws under the CA 1965 were based on the traditional pro‐creditor laws of winding up and receivership, which embodied the liquidation culture. This article examines the transition of the insolvency laws in Malaysia from a liquidation culture under the CA 1965 to a corporate rescue culture under the CA 2016. It also reviews the necessary changes to the pro‐creditor laws, which are preserved under the CA 2016 in order to accommodate the pro‐debtor laws with the introduction of the corporate rescue mechanisms, which came into force on March 1, 2018. Through comparative and critical analysis of similar laws in the United Kingdom and Singapore, this article argues that while the corporate rescue mechanisms are regarded as pro‐debtor however the review reveals that the position of secured creditors are impeding its application and reforms ought to be considered.     

“Too big to fail”? The Agrokor case and its impact on West Balkan economies

From about April 2017, Agrokor became the main economic topic in the Balkans. Once the greatest pride of the Croatian economy, it became a serious problem for its government. Its systemic importance for the country and the region required an immediate legislative solution. The Government had Parliament pass a special law intended to save this company. The special law on the procedure of extraordinary administration in companies of systemic importance adopted in April 2017 is an interesting example, because it introduced a new insolvency procedure titled “extraordinary administration” clearly following the example of the Italian Legge Marzano, which was adopted in order to save the Parmalat group in 2003. It also represents an example of a collision of legislation in the case of cross‐border insolvency proceedings inside and outside of the European Union, where different jurisdictions have diverging standpoints on the question of its recognition as a foreign insolvency procedure. However, once the rescue proceedings began, numerous (and some dubious) interests of the different stakeholders came to the light. The government tried not only to rescue the company and its assets throughout the Balkans region but also to acquire control of it. This was especially visible through the prerogatives of the extraordinary commissioner, formally appointed by the court, but in fact a government official. Creditors at risk, mainly Russian and Italian banks, filed lawsuits to prevent the selling of the debtor's assets. At the end, the majority creditors called to vote on the settlement agreement became the new owners of the company. However, Agrokor is still far from the end of the crisis. It has more than 60,000 employees in the region and their destiny depends on the outcome of the crisis. In more recent times, the case also revealed major political scandals.     

Discharge and entrepreneurship in the preventive restructuring directive

The European Council adopted the Preventive Restructuring Directive (2019/1023/EU) on June 20, 2019, which must be transposed by July 17, 2021, subject to a possible extension of a maximum of 1 year for countries encountering particular difficulties in the implementation. The Directive signals a paradigm shift in EU policy on insolvency from the traditional focus on cross‐border issues. The new Directive puts insolvency squarely at the heart of internal market regulation, following the EU's policy since the Great Recession of 2008 of promoting and strengthening the economy. Since 2016, the European Commission has issued several documents to facilitate insolvency procedures, leading to the recently adopted Preventive Restructuring Directive. Besides restructuring, the Directive promotes the discharge of pre‐insolvency debt for entrepreneurs. The Directive does not require that discharge be extended to other natural persons but recommends it. This article discusses the relationship between entrepreneurs and non‐entrepreneurs in an insolvency situation and concludes that a fair interpretation of the new Directive requires that the situation of the ordinary person with liability for business debt be closely scrutinised.     

Conflicts of interest,intra‐group financing and procedural coordination of group insolvencies

Modern insolvency law instruments recognise the specificity of enterprise group insolvencies, premised on the existence of close operational and financial links between group members. It is widely accepted that maximisation of insolvency estate value and procedural efficiency depend on coordination of insolvency proceedings opened with respect to group entities. Such coordination is prescribed in the European Insolvency Regulation (recast), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency and the recently reformed German insolvency law. Yet in insolvency, group members retain their own insolvency estates and pools of creditors. This is based on the traditional company law principle of entity shielding. Active communication and cooperation between insolvency practitioners and courts do not sit well with the separate (atomistic) nature of insolvency proceedings, as well as different and oftentimes conflicting interests of creditors in such proceedings. As a result, communication and cooperation may be restricted in a situation of conflicts of interest. This article explores how in the context of group distress the risks arising from conflicts of interest can be controlled and mitigated, while ensuring efficient cross‐border cooperation and communication to the maximum extent possible. It analyses three cutting‐edge coordination mechanisms, namely (a) cross‐border insolvency agreements or protocols, (b) special (group coordination and planning) proceedings and (c) the appointment of a single insolvency practitioner. It concludes that both the likelihood and significance of conflicts of interest correlate with the degree of procedural coordination. Therefore, conflict mitigation tools and strategies need to be tailor‐made and targeted at a specific level and coordination mechanism.     

Grounds for Refusal of Recognition of (Quasi‐) Annex Judgements in the Recast European Insolvency Regulation

Insolvency‐related (annex) actions and judgements fall within the scope of the Recast European Insolvency Regulation (‘Recast EIR’). That instrument both determines international jurisdiction regarding annex actions and sets up a simplified recognition system for annex judgements. However, tension between the Recast EIR's provisions on jurisdiction and recognition arises when a court of a state different from the state of insolvency erroneously assumes jurisdiction for annex actions. Such ‘quasi‐annex’ judgements rendered by foreign courts erroneously assuming jurisdiction threaten the integrity of the insolvency proceedings. Besides, the quasi‐annex judgements may violate the effectiveness and efficiency of the insolvency proceedings as well as the principle of legal certainty. In this article, it is argued that even the current legal framework may offer some ways to avoid the recognition of such quasi‐annex judgements. First, the scope of the public policy exception may be extended in order to protect the integrity of the insolvency proceedings from the quasi‐annex judgements rendered by foreign courts erroneously assuming jurisdiction. Second, it may be argued that quasi‐annex judgements do not equal real annex judgements and therefore do not enjoy the automatic recognition system provided by the Recast EIR. At the same time, their close connection to the insolvency proceedings – disregarded by the forum erroneously assuming jurisdiction – may exclude quasi‐annex judgements from the scope of the Brussels Ibis Regulation, as well. As a consequence, those quasi‐annex judgements may fall within the gap between the two regulations, meaning that no European instrument instructs the courts of the member state addressed to recognise quasi‐annex judgements. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Insolvency practice in the field of football

This paper is concerned with UK insolvency practice. It considers how the field of insolvency has developed since the passing of the Insolvency Act 1986 through a Bourdieusian theoretical lens. The case of the administration of Gretna football club is presented as a “special case of what is possible” to enable one to consider “the deepest logic of the social world” (Bourdieu, 1998, p. 4). Football is a field with its own complex insolvency rules which are incommensurable with the Insolvency Act. The case therefore presents an opportunity to reveal that whether insolvency laws are applied or not is determined by a complex socio-political process. Through revealing the socio-political process the paper problematises the notion that insolvency practice is neutral.     

Jurisdiction concerning annex actions in the context of the insolvency and Brussels Ibis regulations

The legislation of the European Union has addressed the private international law aspects of civil and commercial matters and those of insolvency cases separately. While the Brussels Ibis Regulation (and its predecessors) focuses on “classic” civil of commercial cases, insolvency proceedings are subject to the (recast) Insolvency Regulation. However, the close interference between the two related areas of law—commercial and insolvency—results in a category of cases that are commercial and contentious in nature, and so they would tend to gravitate towards the Brussels regime, but yet they are so closely connected to the insolvency proceedings that justifies a special approach. This article focuses on the question of international jurisdiction regarding these “annex actions” in the context of the EU law. It will attempt to explore the historical roots of the current provisions and the evolution of both the European legislation and the relevant case law. The examination of this progression provides a better understanding of the current legislation and answers some questions apparently left open in the recast Insolvency Regulation.     

Universalism and the recognition of group proceedings under the UNCITRAL Model Law in Montenegro

Among the most topical insolvency issues in 2017 was the Croatian “Lex Agrokor”—a controversial “tailor‐made” law providing a unique restructuring opportunity for the largest Croatian conglomerate, the parent company of which was otherwise facing bankruptcy. Soon after the “extraordinary administration procedure” began, the appointed administrator started filing motions for the recognition of the alleged group insolvency as foreign insolvency proceedings in a number of neighbouring and other European countries, most of which have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency. It was an attempt to save the conglomerate's property from being seized in a disorderly fashion by various secured creditors, most noticeably, the largest Russian financial institution Sberbank, which contested these motions with varying success. This article, however, does not present an effort to comprehensively analyse the ongoing legal battle but rather adopts a broader approach to examining the Lex Agrokor to establish grounds for more general conclusions. More precisely, the purpose of this article is twofold. First, to offer strong arguments that, from the standpoint of typical insolvency legislation based on the Model Law, such as that of Montenegro, both the actual and future group proceedings initiated under the Lex Agrokor should fail to meet recognition requirements. Second, based on the preceding case study, to offer conclusions on how to further promote universal approach regarding group insolvencies by emphasizing exactly what the national laws regulating group insolvency should not feature so as to have the proceedings introduced therewith recognized in countries adopting the Model Law.