The Australian insolvency regime revisited: a precis of the next leap forward

Australian corporate insolvency laws contained within Chapter 5 of the Corporations Act are currently being reviewed with respect to four principal areas identified by Australian Government Treasury. The four themes of review include employee ‘benefit’ enhancements; seeking to deter misconduct of company officers; rules around insolvency practitioner disclosure with respect to their remuneration and related independence issues; and some minor proposed changes to the voluntary administration procedure, widely regarded as requiring only minor adjustment. At this time, the draft legislation is not available for general release and is being discussed within the Australian Government appointed Insolvency Law Advisory Group. The next steps are public comment for review of draft legislation and then operation of the legislative change. These are expected to occur in 2007. This paper seeks to outline the likely issues associated with the expected reforms of the Australian insolvency regime. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Retracted: The inter‐relationship between intellectual property and international insolvency

The following article from International Insolvency Review, “The inter‐relationship between intellectual property and international insolvency” by Bashar H. Malkawi, published online on 13 Jan 2010 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com), has been retracted by agreement between the author, the journal editor, and John Wiley & Sons. The retraction has been agreed due to significant overlap between this and another paper: “The fate of intellectual property assets in cross‐border insolvency proceedings” by Nadine Farid published in Gonzaga Law Review, 44(1). Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Rights in rem,Article 5 and the EC Insolvency Regulation: an English perspective

The treatment of security interests is central to any insolvency régime, national or transnational. Under Article 5 of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (E.C. 1346/2000) extensive protection is given to a security interest—or right in rem—over assets of the debtor situate in a Member State other than one in which insolvency proceedings have been opened. The absence, thus far, of any significant body of European case law on Article 5, allows commentators to put forward a range of views on how Article 5 ought to be applied. This article aims to examine the scope of Article 5 protection both conceptually and in terms of illustrations drawn largely from English insolvency law and practice. Particular attention is given to the following issues: what is meant by the ‘opening of insolvency proceedings’ with reference to Article 5; when a liquidator may pay off the holder of a right in rem; whether the rules under the Regulation for determining the situs of an asset alter the English common law position; whether Article 5 prohibits the discharge of an underlying debt by way of a restructuring plan; the position of unsecured creditors who attempt to acquire rights in rem prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings; and whether the English court's equitable jurisdiction to enforce a charge which does not comply with the lex situs, survives the coming into force of the Regulation. Through the discussion of these topics, this article seeks to identify an approach to the interpretation of Article 5 which is consistent not only across the wide range of issues identified but also with the broad policy objectives underlying the treatment of in rem rights in the Regulation. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

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     

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.     

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     

Rwanda Legal Framework on Insolvency: Problems and Proposals for Reform

The purpose of this article is to explore some key insolvency issues, which will be highly selective for this article, and to identify the weaknesses and inconsistencies in the existing framework on insolvency. Rwanda does not have an efficient and effective framework on insolvency, and the article argues that there is a need for an improved insolvency law regime. In view of the weaknesses and inconsistencies, it is vital to consider international best practices such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Legislative Guide on Insolvency and the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency as the basis needed to deal with different aspects or elements of the Rwanda insolvency law. The value of this article lies in the insights it offers into the current framework on insolvency and the opportunity given to address the inconsistencies, weaknesses and uncertainties that invariably arise from the law. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Reorganizing Czech Businesses: A Bankruptcy Law Reform under a Recession Stress‐Test

The new Czech Insolvency Act, featuring a brand new reorganization option for business debtors, has now been in force for over 3 years—a period of a severe downturn in the Czech (and the global) economy. This presents an opportunity to observe the workings of the new insolvency law on a “recession‐loaded” empirical dataset extracted from the on‐line insolvency register also introduced as part of the reform. This is the goal of this article, the subject matter of which is an initial empirical look at insolvency proceedings conducted over debtors whose reorganization attempts had been allowed in the years 2008 and 2009. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Glimpse into the Future: Cross‐border Judicial Cooperation in Insolvency Cases in the European Union

After 2 years of study, discussion and consultation, in February 2015, the EU Cross‐Border Insolvency Court‐to‐Court Cooperation Principles were published. The EU Cross‐Border Insolvency Court‐to‐Court Cooperation Principles (‘EU JudgeCo Principles’) contain 26 principles. The EU JudgeCo Principles aim to strengthen efficient and effective communication between courts in EU Member States in insolvency cases with cross‐border effects. The EU JudgeCo Principles, in short, include principles on their non‐binding status and their objectives, case management of courts and the equal treatment of creditors, and principles about the judicial decisions itself, on the reasoning and for instance on providing a stay or moratorium. Several principles relate to the course of the proceedings, such as notifications and authentication of documents, and the last principles concern the outcome of judicial cooperation, for instance, cross‐border sales, assistance to a reorganisation or rules for binding creditors to an international reorganisation plan. The Principles include 18 EU Cross‐Border Insolvency Court‐to‐Court Communications Guidelines (‘EU JudgeCo Guidelines’). These EU JudgeCo Guidelines aim to facilitate communications in practice, in individual cross‐border cases. The EU JudgeCo Principles try to overcome present obstacles for courts in EU Member States such as formalistic and detailed national procedural law, concerns about a judge's impartiality, uneasiness with the use of certain legal concepts and terms, and, evidently, language. Presently, court‐to‐court communication between judges in insolvency matters in the EU, especially on the continent, is limited to only a few cases. In the near future, judicial cooperation and communication will be a cornerstone in the efficient and effective administration of insolvency cases within the EU. The EU JudgeCo Principles will then certainly serve as a significant guide. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

‘Bankruptcy tourism’ under the EC regulation on insolvency proceedings: A view from England and Wales

This article provides an account of the emergent phenomenon of ‘bankruptcy tourism’—forum shopping by debtors for favourable personal insolvency law—within the EU and with particular reference to England and Wales. After outlining the structural features of the European legal framework that make forum shopping for personal insolvency law possible, including the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings and explaining why England and Wales in particular has proved to be an attractive ‘tourist’ destination, the article charts how the official receivers and the courts in England and Wales have sought to manage the influx of foreign bankruptcies in terms of legal principle and process drawing on two reported cases, Eichler and Mitterfellner. It will be seen that the institutional response in England and Wales has been twofold. First, the ‘problem’ of forum shopping debtors has been framed as a problem of policing the line between genuine and fictional relocations. Secondly, there are signs that the procedural onus on debtors to evidence their claim to English jurisdiction before a bankruptcy order is made has been increased, a move that can be interpreted as a form of institutional resistance designed to raise the barrier to entry. Having sought to illuminate the problems, costs and inconvenience associated with forum shopping from a practitioner standpoint, we explore the ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ forum shopping question and consider the scope for reform of the EC Regulation. Adopting a creditor perspective, we conclude provisionally that the Regulation could usefully be reformed to limit the scope for insolvent debtors to switch their COMI in anticipation of filing for bankruptcy. 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.     

The new “alert procedures” in Italy: Regarder au‐delà du modèle français?

Italy is about to enforce the first comprehensive reform of its corporate insolvency framework since the Second World War. The new Codice della Crisi d'Impresa e dell'Insolvenza builds on international recommendations, European laws and foreign best practice. One area that has been subject to substantial influence from foreign models is preventive insolvency mechanisms, where the Italian Legislator drew from the French and English experiences, as these countries have a widely recognized reputation of excellence in this field. Nevertheless, the similarities between the Italian and the English system – particularly with reference to the Italian panel of experts in the alert procedures and the English “pre‐pack pool” in pre‐packaged administrations – have so far been overlooked in the academic literature. This article sheds some light on the degree of cross‐fertilization between the Italian panel of experts in the procedure d'allerta and the English pre‐pack pool in pre‐packaged administration. The primary purpose of this study is to investigate whether regulatory reforms are needed to support the activity of the Italian panel in promoting restructuring deals for debtors in distress.     

Analyse der Abwicklung von gesetzlichen Krankenkassen per sozialrechtlicher Schließung oder per Insolvenzverfahren

Private as well as statutory health insurers have various ways of insolvency. Although the Insolvency Act has been applied for statutory health insurance since 2010, these new options were not used up to now. Anyway, the legislators laid the preference out of closure. This article investigates how the priority of closure could be in contradiction to the applicability of the Insolvency Act. It is asked, whether the introduction of the insolvency capability of health insurance funds was rather to assimilate the frame conditions relating to pension promises than creating a real alternative. One reason could be, that the Insolvency Act is not only generally applicable in the liquidation of a health insurance fund, but potentially even the best alternative. The insolvency proceedings for example are advantageous for health insurance funds within the same group because the maximum load is split and lower than it would be by a closure by social law and in addition to that the PSV is obligatory. The results show, that the generally-accepted, not limited standard preference of closure as laid out by the legislators in § 171b (3) S. 2 SGB V, seems inexplicable. The paper draws parallels to private health insurance companies under Solvency II and opens up new perspectives for legislative measures.     

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.     

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.