Following consultations on insolvency and corporate governance in 2017 and 2018, the Government recently published its response setting out some notable proposed changes to the existing insolvency and corporate governance legislation. Following the high profile failures of Carillion and BHS, the Government’s response is largely aimed at encouraging the recovery of viable companies, improving transparency and promoting responsible directorship. This article will primarily look at the proposed changes focused on facilitating a rescue culture.
England has been the jurisdiction of choice for European restructurings. While other jurisdictions have sought to revamp their insolvency law in recent years in an effort to chip away at the English dominance in the restructuring arena, the lure of the tried and tested English legislation and judiciary means that the English system has remained dominant. In the wake of Brexit, will England lose its place as jurisdiction of choice?
In February 2016, Mr Justice Snowden handed down his judgment in the High Court proceedings concerning Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) [2016] EWHC 243 (Ch). This matter concerned an application by the liquidators of Ralls Builders Limited (in liquidation) (the company) for a declaration regarding the alleged wrongful trading of the company by its directors, under section 214 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the Act).
From 1 January 2016, European Economic Area (EEA) member states are required to implement Article 55 of the European Union Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (2014/59) (BRRD).
DTEK Finance B.V., Re [2015] EWHC 1164 (Ch)
CASE SNAPSHOT
In the matter of the Nortel Companies, the UK Supreme Court found that pension liabilities attributed to a company that arose prior to the occurrence of an insolvency event were not entitled to priority treatment, even if the first demand for payment was only made after the insolvency event occurred.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The Pension Act
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 a case with truly global implications, the Supreme Court of England and Wales held earlier today that judgments of U.S. Bankruptcy Courts against foreign defendants who had not submitted to the Bankruptcy Court’s jurisdiction were not enforceable in England and Wales in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA.
Factual Background
In re Coastal Broadcasting Systems, Inc., Case No. 11-10596 (Bankr. D. N.J. July 6, 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT
At confirmation, the bankruptcy court considered whether the assignment of voting rights in an intercreditor agreement was enforceable. The bankruptcy court noted that various courts had reached differing conclusions, but ultimately found that the voting assignment in the intercreditor agreement before it was enforceable.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In re KB Toys, Inc., 470 B.R. 331 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012)
CASE SNAPSHOT