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.     

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     

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.     

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.     

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 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 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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Chinese cross‐border insolvencies: current issues and future developments*

This article deals with several problems pertaining to cross‐border insolvency, an important but ignored area in China. In this article, the current status of Chinese bankruptcy laws has been firstly addressed, with a focus on its legal blank on cross‐border insolvency and unsatisfactory judicial practice. Thereafter, the influential Guargdong International Trust and Investment company case has been analysed, which further highlights the inadequacy of Chinese bankruptcy legislation and crying needs for its reform. Basing on the essential principles embodied in the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law Model Law and European Union Regulation, the gaps between Chinese bankruptcy laws and international practice have been made clear. Accordingly, the developments of Chinese cross‐border insolvency have been proposed in order to provide helpful references for the future legislation. Copyright © 2001 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     

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     

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     

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.     

Does the common law power to grant cross‐border insolvency assistance apply to an insolvency winding‐up that is voluntary? The reaction to Singularis from Singapore and Hong Kong

In many common law jurisdictions, the common law power of courts to grant assistance in respect of foreign insolvency proceedings exists independently of statute. The nature of the power, however, continues to generate debate. Obiter dicta of the Privy Council suggests that no assistance is available where the foreign proceeding is a voluntary winding‐up. This article evaluates the position by reference to Singapore and Hong Kong decisions and concludes that a refusal to grant assistance in circumstances involving an insolvent voluntary winding‐up is inconsistent with the principle of modified universalism and that a broader recognition test should be adopted.     

Cross‐border assistance in insolvency under Jersey law

As an off‐shore financial centre, Jersey has not been immune from the global recession, which has brought consideration of cross‐border insolvencies and whether the right tools exist in domestic law to manage proceedings of this nature. It is the purpose of this article to outline the Jersey law relating to cross‐border assistance in insolvency. Copyright © 2011 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.     

Recent Development in Recognition of and Assistance to Foreign Insolvency Representatives Under the Hong Kong Common Law

Although Hong Kong has neither enacted nor launched any plan to enact a statute addressing cooperation and assistance on cross‐border insolvency matters, recently, a unique Hong Kong approach dealing with recognition and assistance in cross‐border insolvency is gradually forming under common law. Thanks to the efforts made by the Companies Court of the Hong Kong High Court, insolvency representatives appointed in the place of incorporation of the debtors may, firstly, be accorded a certain degree of automatic recognition and cooperation based on traditional private international law rules without going through a recognition procedure and, secondly, be recognized and granted active assistance under principle of universalism at common law. With regard to the limits of this common law power, the court has referred to but not strictly followed the British Privy Council's decision in Singularis Holdings Limited v. PricewaterhouseCoopers (Singularis) and instead followed the previous approach in Cambridge Gas Transport Corp v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (of Navigator Holdings PLC and others) (Cambridge Gas). The Companies Court also attempted to simplify and facilitate the application and grant of this common law recognition and assistance through a series of innovations. Copyright © 2018 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