It is well established that the type of recognition granted by the recognising court under the UNCITRAL Model Law will depend on whether the originating proceedings are ‘foreign main’ or ‘foreign non-main’ proceedings, which in turn hinges on the centre of main interests (COMI) of the insolvent entity.

Anyone with a passing knowledge of derivatives law will be aware of the controversy created by section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement.1 Differing interpretations of 2(a)(iii) have emerged in litigation in London and the United States since the collapse of Lehman Brothers. The recent judgement of the Court of Appeal in London in Lomas v. JFB Firth Rixson Inc² brings significant clarity from the English perspective. The decision upholds the interpretation of section 2(a)(iii) favoured by the derivatives market.

Under the 2000 version of the Global Master Repurchase Agreement (the "GMRA"), a standard form agreement produced by The Bond Market Association and the International Securities Market Association, an Event of Default occurs, and all outstanding transactions under the GMRA are accelerated immediately, upon:

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has held that a bankruptcy trustee appointed in a non-U.S. bankruptcy case did not need authority from a U.S. court to take possession and control of a foreign debtor’s assets located in the United States, and transfer them.

A recent Isle of Man case, Interdevelco Limited v. Waste2energy Group Holdings plc, demonstrates that the debate around how courts should approach international insolvency legislation rages on. The decision emphasised the importance of the principle of universality, the concept that there should be one insolvency proceeding under which all creditors’ claims can be collectively assessed and administered. This approach contrasts with that taken by the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the two recent cases of Rubin v.

In late February 2014, MtGox Co., Ltd (“MtGox”), once the largest bitcoin exchange in the world, suspended all trading on its exchange after internal investigations revealed a loss of approximately 750,000 of its customers’ bitcoins worth nearly $473 million. That loss caused MtGox to become insolvent.

Currently in the UAE, laws related to insolvency are unclear. Companies face harsh penalties in a bankruptcy scenario, and individuals can face criminal sanctions and penal sentences. However, a new bankruptcy law drawing from international best practice is expected to come into force in early 2017, in the wake of low oil prices since 2015. With the implementation of the new law, the UAE government seeks to create a robust legal insolvency framework, within which all businesses can operate and parties can be sufficiently protected.

The current law regarding insolvency in the UAE is not a comprehensive regime, and the present framework is found across three different laws (mainly in the Commercial Companies Law, as well as the Commercial Transactions Law and the Civil Code). Additionally, companies faced harsh penalties in a bankruptcy scenario, and individuals could also face criminal sanctions and penal sentences. In the wake of low oil prices since 2015, and more companies facing distress, a new bankruptcy law drawing from international best practice will come into force in the UAE, from the beginning of 2017.

Business Secretary Alok Sharma has announced that the government will be introducing measures to “improve the legal options for companies running into major difficulties. The overriding objective is to help UK companies, which need to undergo a financial rescue or restructuring process, to keep trading. These measures will give those firms extra time and space to weather the storm and be ready when the crisis ends”.¹

The temporary amendments to the insolvency laws which are being considered include: