In a corporate world where the capital structures of companies are becoming increasingly complex, schemes of arrangements under the Companies Act 2006 have established themselves as the restructuring procedure of choice for many distressed companies. This popularity is evidenced by the fact that schemes of arrangement have been increasingly used by overseas companies wishing to restructure their debts under the flexibility offered by English law.

Most commodities contracts are cross border, often with one or more parties located in a country where gaining access or cooperation to enforce an arbitration award or court judgment can be challenging.

If your counterparty is in a ‘difficult’ country, is there any point in incurring the time and cost of pursuing a claim in arbitration or litigation against them at all? Alternatively, do you already have awards or judgments against parties that you have not found a way to enforce? Are they worth any more than the paper they are written on?

We are increasingly being asked to advise non EU resident nationals, with cross jurisdictional lives, who wish to take advantage of the IVA regime in England & Wales.  A fairly standard scenario we see is this:

Kai Zeng and Kon M Asimacopoulos, Kirkland & Ellis

This is an extract from the first edition of GRR's The Art of the Ad Hoc. The whole publication is available here. 

The purpose and role of ad hoc committees from a debtor’s perspective: the initial phase

Introduction

More than ten (10) years after the enactment of Brazilian Bankruptcy Law, a uniform understanding by the Brazilian courts of several matters remains unresolved, being the application of substantive consolidation one of the most troubling.

Consolidation (procedural and material)

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.

Globalization has led to a marked increase in international components to insolvency proceedings. Cross-border issues add a new layer of complexity to what is often a situation already fraught with obstacles. Courts and practitioners alike face additional difficulties communicating with other courts, resolving issues consistently in jurisdictions with different laws and policy objectives, and enforcing rulings and implementing orders adjudicated extraterritorially.

TRANSACTIONAL

May 2, 2017

Bankruptcy and Financial Restructuring Alert

Coming to America?--Applying Bankruptcy Code Section 109(a) to Vet Foreign Companies Filing US Bankruptcy Cases Under Chapter 15

By Andrew N. Goldman, Benjamin W. Loveland and Lauren R. Lifland

I. Introduction

THE RULING: CHAPTER 15 DEBTORS CAN ASSERT AVOIDANCE ACTIONS UNDER STATE LAW

Globalisation has been described as an evolving set of consequences – some good, some bad and some unintended. In this regard, when companies go global, insolvency is perhaps the furthest thing from their minds. Yet, while business failure may be unintended, when a global company becomes insolvent or attempts debt restructuring, its insolvency representative e.g. liquidator or manager, will often have to deal with assets and creditors across the globe.