The legal responses of Canada and Poland to international bankruptcy and insolvency with a focus on cross‐border insolvency law

This article discusses and compares the respective legal responses of Canada and Poland to international bankruptcy and insolvency with a focus on cross‐border insolvency law. Specifically, the issues addressed herein concern jurisdiction, recognition of foreign bankruptcy proceedings, and co‐operation with foreign courts and foreign administrators. Notwithstanding some real differences between Canadian and Polish international insolvency proceedings, both legal regimes may be compared, since both countries have adopted many of the principles contained in the UNICTRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency. The major impetus behind the changes established by Canada in its bankruptcy and insolvency laws have been the economic realities produced by the North American Free Trade Agreement. Likewise, Poland's accession to the European Union (EU) has been a major catalyst for revising the Polish Insolvency and Restructuring Act. Part II of the said act is entirely devoted to international insolvencies. However, following Poland's adherence to the EU, those sections of the Polish Insolvency and Restructuring Act that deal with international or cross‐border insolvencies will be severely limited or constrained in scope. The article indicates that Poland, the EU and Canada are taking the necessary steps to meet the needs of debtors who would like to restructure in an international setting. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Inherent Power of Common Law Courts to Provide Assistance in Cross‐Border Insolvencies: From Comity to Complexity

The weighty and difficult issues associated with cross‐border insolvency have generated considerable debate over the last two decades. Legislative reform has typically proven slow and fragmented. This article analyses the inherent power of common law courts to grant assistance in cross‐border insolvency proceedings and the basis on which the inherent power is exercised. In doing so, it seeks to explore how the inherent power may continue to be of utility to common law courts. In particular, it considers the position in jurisdictions that are yet to adopt the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency or enact a substantial statutory regime for recognising and cooperating with foreign courts or representatives in insolvency proceedings. The article considers the benefits and disadvantages of continuing to recognise – and extend – the inherent power. It suggests that although there are fundamental differences concerning the exercise of the inherent power, it may be possible to agree on a number of principles that inform the application of the inherent power and its future development. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

‘Brexit’ and International Insolvency Beyond the Realm of Mutual Trust

The outcome of the referendum held in the UK in June 2016 is of far‐reaching and unpredictable consequences. This article focuses on the particular field of international insolvency with a view to identifying some of them, all arising out of the fact that the UK will be leaving the EU area of justice and the strong cooperation based on mutual trust between member states. This will make UK–EU insolvency cases clearly less efficient and effective. The consequences of Brexit could be mitigated by the already existing coordination among the international instruments dealing with these matters, in particular the European Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency. However, not all EU member states have in place rules dealing with these issues as regards to third states. In order to lessen the impact of Brexit in this sensitive area of law, the implementation of the Model Law in order to deal with extra‐EU cross‐border insolvency could be of avail. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Are Bangladesh,India and Pakistan Ready to Adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency?

The development of business laws in key markets has not kept pace with the exponential growth of foreign investment they have experienced. Countries such as Brazil, Russia and China either do not consider the issue of cross‐border insolvency in their legislation or they explicitly provide for a ‘territorialist’ approach to cross‐border insolvency proceedings, whereby each country grabs local assets for the benefit of local creditors, with little consideration of foreign proceedings. This has led to uncoordinated, expensive attempts at cross‐border reorganisation. The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency (1997) was adopted with the objective of modernising international insolvency regimes and enhancing cross‐border cooperation. In its 19 years of existence, it has been adopted by 41 countries in a total of 43 jurisdictions but by none of the BRIC states or the ‘Next‐11’ nations of Bangladesh and Pakistan. While it has entered into policy‐level discussion in China, India and Russia, it would seem that there is still scepticism regarding the efficacy and suitability of the Model Law for adoption into their national systems. This paper seeks to establish whether the Model Law can adequately plug, what Steven Kargman calls, ‘the glaring gap in the international insolvency architecture’, looking particularly at the context of the South Asian states of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan. It will question whether its adoption will improve the ability of these jurisdictions to handle the challenges of cross‐border insolvencies, especially in light of their existing legal landscape, their market policy objectives and the existing alternatives available to the Model Law. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

McGrath v Riddell: A flexible approach to the insolvency distribution rules?

The rules relating to the division of the insolvent estate assume considerable importance in the field of international insolvencies, where different legal systems interact. International instruments including the European insolvency regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency have provided a framework which governs the relationship between local and foreign distribution schemes. For English lawyers, questions remain however regarding the future role of the courts' statutory power to cooperate with the courts of ‘relevant’ countries or territories, and of the common law principle of universalism. An important issue connected to the determination of such questions is the established judicial approach to the pari passu rule, in the application of domestic law. This paper examines the manifestation of this tension in the litigation arising from the collapse of the HIH Casualty & General Insurance group of companies. It notes the scope which remains for continued resort to the statutory power of cooperation, and the potential for the Cross‐Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 to encourage a more flexible approach to resolving differences between distribution schemes. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cross‐border Insolvency and Legal Transnationalisation

The last 20 years has seen an explosion of approaches for dealing with an inevitable consequence of globalised markets, that of cross‐border insolvencies. This article places phenomena such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency and Cross‐border Insolvency Agreements (also known as Protocols) within the context of developing laws on international commercial transactions. First, it briefly describes the evolution of the international commercial law (sometimes known as the law merchant) to provide a context to understanding the international commercial responses to the problems created by cross‐border insolvencies. Next, it outlines the range of approaches being adopted by states and multilateral bodies in recent decades to resolve cross‐border insolvency issues. Finally it draws some preliminary conclusions on the potential implication of this transnationalisation process and broader international commercial law perspective, in particular on the capacity of cross‐border insolvency agreements to address cross‐border insolvency issues. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cross-border insolvency law in India: Are the principles of comity of courts and inherent common law jurisdiction relevant?

Deliberations are in the final stages for enacting a cross-border insolvency law in India based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency 1997 (‘Model Law’). The cross-border insolvency regime in India will provide an avenue for recognising foreign insolvency proceedings in India. Although it is a matter of time before India adopts the Model Law, it is important to examine whether there remains an independent basis in addition to the Model Law for recognising and providing assistance to cross-border insolvency proceedings in India. This is crucial on account of the following reasons: first, the Model Law does not provide that it is the exclusive pathway for foreign creditors to seek remedies under domestic law. The Model Law, as reflected in Article 7, was intended by its drafters to be an additional gateway to those provided under local laws. The proposed Indian law in Article 5 of Draft Part Z of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 also does not depart expressly from this principle. Second, there may be instances where neither the ‘Centre of Main Interests’ nor an establishment of a corporate debtor is situated in India; therefore, assistance and cooperation in respect of such cross-border insolvency proceeding can only be based on the inherent common law jurisdiction, if available. Third, the cross-border insolvency framework in India will be premised on the requirement for reciprocity and, therefore, countries that do not meet the reciprocity requirement may find it beneficial if such an independent basis for recognition exists in India. This article argues that foreign representatives should be encouraged to explore the possibility of seeking assistance from the commercial courts in India under the common law principles governing cross-border insolvency and that the courts in India should be open to this possibility.     

Preference Transaction Avoidance in Ghana: Has the Liquidator's burden changed?

Financially distressed companies sometimes conceive plans to pay off certain creditors before petitioning the Court for winding up. This last‐minute payment referred to as a preference transaction puts the preferred creditor in a better position than the rest of the company's creditors because the distressed company may not have enough assets to satisfy everyone. Insolvency law frowns on such last‐minute transactions and provides the Liquidator with the power to avoid these transactions, to restore the asset to the company and distribute it to all the creditors. Preference avoidance forms an integral part of the corporate insolvency law in Ghana. These principles founded upon the common law of England are now provided for under the Bodies Corporate (Official) Liquidation Act 1963 (Act 180) of Ghana. This essay discusses preference avoidance under Ghanaian law. It also examines a recent judicial application of the law and finally suggest avenues for reform.     

Set‐off under the European insolvency regulation (and English law)

This paper addresses critically the meaning and effect of the set‐off provisions in the European Insolvency Regulation. The Regulation sets out the authority of EU Member States to open insolvency proceedings and provides that, subject to exceptions, the law of the State that opens insolvency proceedings shall apply to those proceedings. Setoff is one such exception for the opening of insolvency proceedings does not affect the rights of creditors to demand the set‐off of their claims against the insolvent debtor. Set‐off is intended to perform a guarantee type function for creditor claims. Nevertheless, the Regulation does not define what is meant by set‐off nor clarify whether set‐off rights under the law of a third country (such as English law) may be relied upon. The paper provides valuable clarification and critical analysis.     

Maritime cross‐border insolvency in China

Due to the high degree of mobility of ships and the special operational structures of shipping companies, it is difficult to harmonise the cross‐border insolvency regime with the maritime law regime governing ships. One of the typical examples is the recent bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd. Chinese creditors were heavily affected by the bankruptcy of Hanjin. However, Hanjin never filed an application to have its Korean insolvency proceeding recognised in the People's Republic of China (PRC). Nor did it commence any ancillary insolvency application under the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law of the PRC. Taking Hanjin's bankruptcy as an example, this article examines the current statutory regime of cross‐border insolvency in the PRC in detail and analyses the approach adopted by the Chinese courts to resolve the conflicts that arise between the cross‐border insolvency and maritime law regimes.     

The Future Direction of China's Cross‐border Insolvency Laws,Related Issues and Potential Problems

The enactment of bankruptcy laws by the People's Republic of China (PRC or China) in 2006 was a necessary step in the development of its economy. This law represented a significant modernisation of the insolvency framework, supporting the transforming economy, but it was also a law of political expediency, for the enhancement of external relations. One aspect of the enhancement of external relations was the provision of cross‐border insolvency rules. However, this complex area of law was addressed in only one article, which was only a starting point, leaving many details unaddressed, and further reforms are required. In particular, it is desirable that the law provides a greater level of predictability as to the likely outcomes of cross‐border insolvencies, to encourage inward trade and investment, as well as encourage external trade. Both inbound and outbound business dealings are important to China's continued economic development. It is clear also, however, that insolvency law and practice is still a developing area for China. The establishment of a modern and unified system of insolvency laws was a big step for China, representing a sacrifice of tight controls on insolvencies, but the impact of this law in practice is only recently developing, with a loosening of state controls, after a very slow start. 1 The establishment of a cross‐border insolvency framework represents a further challenge; one that is likely to beset with considerable difficulties, as any further development of this law would potentially entail some further loss of control over proceedings, not least in outbound cases, and resistance may be anticipated. In keeping with China's historical approach to lawmaking in the area of bankruptcy law, it is likely that the cross‐border insolvency framework will develop gradually and with caution. This article assesses the way forward in respect of cross‐border insolvency laws, contending that an incremental approach over a period of years, in three broad stages, is required, with more developed and country‐specific approaches providing a link, or interim stage, between the clarification of the Article 5 and the formal adoption of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency Proceedings 1997 (Model Law) in China. Copyright © 2018 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

China's new Enterprise Bankruptcy Law—A great leap forward,but just how far?

The closure of many small and medium enterprises (SMEs) following the global financial crisis of 2008 spurred the Chinese government to follow its international counterparts in issuing an economic stimulus package. While it was effective in preventing many financially distressed SMEs from failure by boosting demand for its businesses, in the long run, such SMEs should be rescued through a statutory regime, which affords them temporary protection from creditors and provides them an opportunity to restructure their businesses. In doing so, the premature liquidation of SMEs would be prevented and SMEs with viable businesses but in temporary financial difficulties would be given a chance to succeed again. Although China's new Enterprise Bankruptcy Law (EBL) has shortcomings, it improves upon its predecessor legislation and, since it is still at an infantile stage of development, is bound for further reform. Despite the EBL's success in bringing Chinese corporate bankruptcy laws in line with international standards, full compliance with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency and UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law remains to be seen. In September 2008, the South China Morning Post newspaper reported that the number of (applications for) corporate reorganization and bankruptcy cases had dropped, “leading to widespread speculation there are problems in the law's practical application”. 1 This article examines the implementation of the EBL, critiques key aspects of the EBL and argues for a comprehensive assessment of the EBL and for bringing the EBL in full compliance with the international standards on cross‐border insolvency. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The European Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency

This article compares the Recast European Insolvency Regulation of 2015 with the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency of 1997, focussed on their scope of application, international jurisdiction and the coordination of main and secondary proceedings. The scopes of both catalogues of norms and their rules on coordination of main and secondary insolvency proceedings reflect one another. However, the Recast EIR makes a significantly greater contribution to the unification of law and is also more fully differentiated and more precise, even if this comes at a price, namely, limited flexibility. The UNCITRAL Model Law made an important contribution to the harmonisation of international insolvency law but requires now modernisation. Copyright © 2017 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bridge over Troubled Water: The Revised Insolvency Regulation

The EU legislature has used the last two and a half years to negotiate a modernised framework for cross‐border insolvencies largely outside the spotlight of public debate. The revised Insolvency Regulation introduces new rules on secondary proceedings and innovative provisions on insolvency proceedings for groups of companies. Some parts of the final reform package were not originally envisaged by the European Commission, and it was the European Parliament and the Council that, in an unusual display of unity, agreed on more ambitious steps than the EU executive had proposed. However, not all that glitters is gold. The legislature missed the opportunity to clarify the concept of Centre of Main Interest, and it is still for the courts to establish international jurisdiction on the basis of rather vague criteria. It will soon be time to give life to the rules and ensure that cross‐border insolvencies are conducted more effectively than they are today. The new rules entered into force on 25 June 2015 and apply from 26 June 2017. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

The transaction avoidance regime in the recast European insolvency regulation: Limits and prospects

In the last decade, transaction avoidance in insolvency law has been in the limelight of the academic discussions. In particular, the scholarship has highlighted how the European Insolvency Regulation gives rise to several private international law issues. Moreover, the scholarship has explored solutions to these issues and proposed to harmonise the regime of transaction avoidance at European Union level. However, the recent legislative developments on the cross‐border insolvency law seem resistant to the proposed harmonisation. This article focuses on the transaction avoidance regime in the Recast European Insolvency Regulation. In particular, it seeks to evaluate whether the Recast has solved the issues arising within the original European Insolvency Regulation in relation to transaction avoidance. Secondly, it questions the suitability of the private international law approach to transaction avoidance in cross‐border insolvency within the European Union framework. The research suggests that the efforts required to the private international law framework to deal efficiently with transaction avoidance make the harmonisation of the regime of transaction avoidance at the European Union level a more appealing option.     

Recognition of Debt Restructuring and Resolution Measures under the European Union Regulatory Framework

Under the proposed Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD), member states will be required to provide for bail‐in powers to restructure failing financial institutions. At this moment, the Dutch, French, UK and German legislator already provide public authorities with resolution powers. In order to be effective in debt restructuring of failing (non‐)financial institutions, the measures taken by the resolution authorities need to be enforceable (before all courts) and effective in the entire European Union. Given the fact that not all the firm's debt is issued in the home jurisdiction, the question of recognition is critically important. In regard of non‐financial firms, the Dutch, UK, French and German jurisdictions provide for court proceedings to impose a collective settlement reached by the debtor and the majority of its creditors binding on the opposing minority. Out‐of‐insolvency plans approved by the court are recognised under the Brussels I Regulation. If the EU Insolvency Regulation reform proposal is adopted, these court‐approved debt restructuring plans in insolvency situations will be subject to the recognition regime of this regulation. Credit institutions, insurance undertakings, investment undertakings holding funds or securities for third parties and collective investment undertakings are excluded from the scope of the Insolvency Regulation whereas the scope of application of the Reorganisation and Winding Up Directive is limited to credit institutions. The regime under the future BRRD and the Single Resolution Mechanism is limited to credit institutions. National (private international) law determines the recognition of resolution measures taken by the authorities of another member state. Copyright © 2014 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Rethinking priority: The dawn of the relative priority rule and the new “best interests of creditors” test in the European Union

This article identifies one aspect of the cross‐class cram‐down from the EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency that has not drawn wide attention to date. In addition to giving EU Member States the option of a “relative priority rule,” the European legislator has introduced a new “best interest of creditors” test, which does not—like in Chapter 11 of the US Bankruptcy Code—use the value that a party could expect in a hypothetical liquidation as a comparator but refers to the “next‐best‐alternative scenario.” First, this article addresses the concepts of the absolute and relative priority rule from the Directive and explores the motives for introducing the relative priority rule. In particular, a demand for more flexibility in restructuring negotiations, the call for an instrument to overcome structural hold‐out positions of preferential (priority) creditors in some Member States, as well as a trend in Europe to break with the “traditional laws of insolvency law” of law and economics seem to have inspired the legislator in drawing up the relative priority rule. This article then deals with the new “best interest” test and examines its interaction with the relative priority rule. It is shown that the concept of combining the new “best interest” test with the relative priority rule is coherent in theory. However, this article remains skeptical as to whether this interaction can succeed in practice, as the new “best interest” test is likely to add another stress point to the negotiations of restructuring plans.     

Towards adoption of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on cross‐border insolvency in Kenya

Kenyan Insolvency Bill has been in the Kenyan government website since 2010. The analysis of the Bill reveals that if it were to be passed into law, it will have significant implications for the Kenyan insolvency legal regime. The regime which is currently in use is based on the law that was inherited from the colonial administration. This review article focusses on the potential implication that the Bill is, if it were to be passed into law, likely to have for cross‐border insolvency reform and proceedings. The analysis is informed by the international insolvency benchmarks, particularly the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law on cross‐border insolvency and the emerging trends of its adoption in various countries including in sub‐Saharan Africa. Copyright © 2013 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd