The English Court has agreed to lift the automatic stay on proceedings under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) against STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd (“STX”) which had entered into rehabilitation proceedings in Korea.
Facts
The latest development in what has been a long-running (and expensive) cross-border insolvency proceeding involving Nortel (see our June 2015 and September 2015 legal updates for previous instalments) is a settlement between:
Key points
- Automatic stays on proceedings are imposed by Article 20 of the UNCITRAL Model Law (and mirrored in s.130(2) IA 1986)
- The case reinforces the principle that automatic stays are designed to avoid the unnecessary expenditure of assets otherwise available for distribution amongst creditors
The facts
Hogan Lovells Corporate Insurance Newsletter June 2014 UK PRA publishes PS5/14: PRA Rulebook PRA publishes statement of policy on the financial stability information power The PRA’s approach document to insurance supervision updated PRA publishes SS7/14: Reports by skilled persons PRA publishes statement of policy on the use of PRA powers to address serious failings in the culture of firms PRA publishes its annual report and accounts 2014 FCA publishes a market study into retirement income: revised terms of reference FCA publishes FG14/6 - Annuity comparison websites: financ
Background
Administration
Administration is a procedure by which a company can be reorganised and its assets realised whilst being protected by a moratorium from actions brought by creditors (explained below).
Objectives
A company can be put into administration if the objectives of administration are likely to be achieved. These are set out in the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”)4 as:
On December 21, ISDA announced that it sought and was granted permission to intervene in the Lehman Brothers International Europe case in order to ensure that the arguments reflecting the market's interpretation of Section 2(a)(iii) of the ISDA Master Agreement were made before the court. The court agreed with ISDA that Section 2(a)(iii) is "suspensive" in effect. ISDA Release.
Through the years, arbitration as a mode of dispute resolution has gained prominence because it promotes party autonomy with minimal court intervention, amongst others.
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.
An examination of the impact of an insolvent respondent in an arbitration.
In 2008, the catastrophic effect of the credit crunch spread to most world economies, touching governments, companies and individuals alike. As in previous recessions, insolvency is affecting increasing numbers of individuals and companies. UK government figures show that individual insolvencies went up by 8.8% in the third quarter of 2008, with corporate liquidations up by 10.5% in the same period. Commentators predict that this trend will only accelerate through 2009.
Summary
On 1 July 2009, UNCITRAL adopted the Practice Guide on Cross-Border Insolvency Cooperation. The Practice Guide provides a useful reference source on some practical aspects of cooperation and communication to deal with many of the conflicts and tensions between stakeholders and jurisdictions inevitable in cross-border cases. To ease these tensions, it is often essential for creditors and, importantly, the courts concerned to reach agreement about how the process will be handled.
International context