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 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.     

Groups of companies in the Recast European Insolvency Regulation: Around and about the “group”

Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (Recast European Insolvency Regulation/Recast EIR) contains a set of articles dedicated to the insolvency proceedings relative to members of groups of companies. No substantial consolidation or any procedural nature is envisaged. Article 2(13) of Regulation 2015/848 clarifies that, for the purposes of the same, a “group of companies” must be understood as “a parent undertaking and all its subsidiary undertakings.” However, many doubts arise when one goes deeper into that definition. The author deals with some of those problems and gives some suggestions to overcome them.     

Cross‐Border Debt Adjustment – Open Questions in European Insolvency Proceedings

At present, 18 European Union member states have some form of legislation on adjustment of the debts of a private individual. Only half of these debt adjustment proceedings are mentioned in Annex A of the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) and therefore fall within the scope of it. As most of the debt adjustment proceedings are not included in the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, there is a regulatory gap in the European insolvency proceedings with unpleasant impacts on the free movement of labour. Fortunately, changes are coming, in the form of the EIR reform. In order to bring debt adjustment within the scope of the EIR, the Commission proposes to loosen the prerequisite concerning the legal effects, which the opening of the proceedings has on the debtor. Regarding the jurisdiction to open main proceedings, the Commission proposes that COMI (the debtor's centre of main interests) would be the place of habitual residence. The open question is, whether residency requires a certain continuity or stability. This issue is discussed in the paper taking into account recent Court of Justice of the European Union case law. The challenge of the EIR reform is that only provisions on scope and jurisdiction have been modified as to debt adjustment. One may ask, e.g. when the prerequisites concerning the opening of secondary proceedings are fulfilled if the debtor is a private individual. Copyright © 2013 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Defining groups of companies under the European Insolvency Regulation (recast): On the scope of EU group insolvency law

This article examines the general scope of application of the provisions on insolvency regarding members of a “group of companies”, as included in Chapter V of the European Insolvency Regulation (recast) (“Recast EIR”), in order to review whether that scope is appropriate to deal with the different group structures in which business may be conducted. With the definition for a “group of companies” playing a paramount role in determining the scope of these provisions, the article includes a thorough analysis of the current definition for a “group of companies” as included in the Recast EIR. Based upon a teleological approach, the article argues in favour of an independent, broad and flexible interpretation of “group of companies”, in order to include a large number of groups within the scope of the Recast EIR's provisions regarding group insolvencies.     

Some Observations on the New Group Coordination Procedure of the Reformed European Insolvency Regulation

The recast of the European Insolvency Regulation introduces a new coordination procedure for handling insolvencies of groups of companies. The procedure relies on a group coordinator to create a helpful group insolvency plan while the individual insolvency proceedings remain independent. Albeit being a step into the right direction, the procedure has significant shortcomings such as the weak position of the coordinator, a liberal opt‐in and opt‐out mechanism and the problem of forum shopping. In the end, the new procedure can be a valuable tool in limited cases and should be merely seen as an addendum to a variety of possibilities to handle group insolvencies. Copyright © 2015 INSOL International and 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     

The Context for Cross‐Border Insolvency Law Reform in Sub‐Saharan Africa

Cross‐border insolvency literature has developed significantly in recent years. However, the scholarship that has evolved lacks an insight from the perspective of Sub‐Saharan Africa (SSA). Existing theories on cross‐border insolvencies, and the global insolvency benchmarks that emerged in the recent years, have almost exclusively been developed from the best practices obtained in advanced economies. Accordingly, the context within which SSA cross‐border insolvency reform may be undertaken must be determined and explored given the pressure towards globalisation and the potential for the pressure to result in unsuitable legislative reform. This article sets out the context for cross‐border insolvency law reform in SSA. It raises issues that are likely to arise during the reform process and challenges that may be faced. Copyright © 2014 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.     

Modelling as a Tool for Cross‐border Analysis of the Position of Insolvency Office Holders

This paper presents a framework and a model applied to make a cross‐border analysis of the position of Insolvency Office Holders. Both the framework and the model were developed in the course of an assignment to design Principles and Best Practices for Insolvency Office Holders for INSOL Europe. The framework is developed by induction from a variety of sources of rules and regulations regarding Insolvency Office Holders, while the model subsequently has been derived by deduction from the framework. Finally, the paper shows how this method assisted in determining the issues to be covered by Principles and Best Practices. The authors argue that commencing international legal comparison with abstract reasoning and modelling may lessen the effect of researcher's academic or professional blind spots and cultural bias and has the potential to enhance the value of cross‐border analysis in terms of coherence, consistency and completeness. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and 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     

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.     

Quasi‐Nationalisation in the UK Banking Crisis: A Problematic Policy Option

The systemic banking crisis in 2008 led to the quasi‐nationalisation of two UK listed banks: The Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group (National Audit Office, 2010). Using property rights and agency theory as the theoretical frameworks, this paper analyses whether the quasi‐nationalisation of these banks has been successful. It is argued that as a rescue mechanism, quasi‐nationalisation was a positive development. However, questions arise over its effect as an instrument of banking reform. The State's arm's length approach to management represents a lost opportunity to change the culture of profitability over people that contributed to the banking crisis.     

Role of Insolvency Practitioners in the UK Pre‐pack Administrations: Challenges and Control

The pre‐pack administrations (‘pre‐packs’) in the UK have repeatedly been criticised for allowing the exploitation of certain types of unsecured creditors. In this context, the role of the administrators (who are qualified insolvency practitioners) is one of the key elements. This article examines the new challenges brought by the pre‐pack strategy to the conventional role of insolvency practitioners as the administrators. It suggests that the pre‐determination nature of pre‐packs is likely to make the administration proceedings less manager‐displacing in practice than the formal rules would suggest. Although this tendency can be expected to facilitate information gathering during the rescue negotiations, it raises urgent questions with respect to the potential alignment of interests between the inside players that may impair the impartiality of the administrators. In response to such challenges, the article argues that, in spite of the recent proposals of introducing drastic statutory regulation to control the controversy of the pre‐pack practice, a proportionate way is to see how the existing control mechanisms can contribute more in reinforcing the independence of administrators. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency and the Rule of Law

The rule of law is a concept that was often considered in the context of national legal systems. However, it is now commonly being promoted as significant in the transnational context. This paper addresses its importance within the transnational economic and commercial context, in particular in response to cross‐border insolvencies. It examines how the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency and its Guide to Enactment and Interpretation promote key tenets of the rule of law in transnational disputes arising out of businesses in financial distress. In particular, some examples are provided of cases from the Asia‐Pacific region in which the Model Law has been applied to demonstrate how the rule of law may be promoted in an insolvency context. Finally, the paper concludes that the adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency promotes transparency, accountability and predictability, which in turn support stability in financial systems and credit relationships and thus trade within a global market. This is a direct result of adherence to elements of the rule of law principle. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Copyright © 2016 INSOL International and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Northern Lights,Canada's version of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐Border Insolvency

Statute of Canada Chapter 47, when it is proclaimed in force, will largely adopt the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross‐border Insolvency. The current and proposed cross‐border provisions could be considered Canada's “Northern Lights”, evolving constantly, but aligning with the objectives and scope of the UNCITRAL Model Law. While Chapter 47 is a modified version of the Model Law, it continues Canada's regime as one of modified universalism, with a strong commitment to comity and coordination. There are likely to be contests for control over the scope of foreign proceedings, although arguably, no more so than under the language of the Model Law. The most critical issues to resolve in the short term are definitions of COMI where corporate groups are involved, and the issue of the scope and extent of possible concurrent main proceedings, both areas left to the discretion of the courts in their interpretation of the legislation's domestic, as well as cross‐border, provisions. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.