Administrators are statutorily entitled to require a receiver to vacate office (paragraph 41 Schedule B1 Insolvency Act 1986 (“Schedule B1”)). In Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd vCraig and another [2017] EWHC 2405 (Ch) they did just that, taking steps to remove existing receivers not long after their appointment, claiming the action to be in the interests of all the creditors. On the facts, that decision was not only unreasonable but costs were also awarded personally against the administrators.

Brief facts and arguments

VE Vegas Investors IV LLC and others vs Shinners and others [2018] EWHC 186 Ch

Background

The applicants were creditors of VE Interactive Limited (In administration) (“VE”). VE encountered financial difficulties and its directors sought insolvency advice from insolvency practitioners at Smith and Williamson (“S&W”) and appointed them to advise on and effect a pre-pack sale of VE’s business and assets.

With the significant increase in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency filings in the 43 nations or territories that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), including the U.S., the incidence of "COMI migration"—the shifting of a debtor’s "center of main interests" ("COMI") to a country with more favorable insolvency laws—has also increased. As demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S.

In Short

The Situation: In cross-border restructuring cases, court-approved insolvency protocols are applied to facilitate communication between U.S. and foreign courts and standardize certain common procedures. The protocols are sometimes adapted to address case-specific issues.

The Result: Case-specific provisions tend to address information-sharing guidelines, claims reconciliation, the management of assets, and dispute resolution.

In the March/April 2013 edition of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on an opinion by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York concluding that a chapter 15 debtor’s sale of claims against Bernard Madoff’s defunct brokerage company was not subject to review as an asset sale under section 363(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In the recent case of Cherkasov & others v Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756 (Ch) the English courts considered the public policy exception set out in Article 6 Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and whether security for costs could be ordered against the official receiver of a Russian company (who had obtained recognition in England under CIBR) when he applied for an order for the production of evidence by some of the former managers of a Russian company under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

In Short

The Situation: For cross-border insolvency matters, parties increasingly depend on court-approved protocols to assist in the management of complex insolvencies involving a debtor or debtors whose assets, liabilities, or operations span international borders.

The Action: Courts in Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and some U.S. bankruptcy districts have implemented Guidelines for Communication and Cooperation between Courts in Cross-Border Insolvency Matters.

The English courts have recently wrestled with the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) in a case about the lifting of the automatic stay on proceedings against Korean company STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd

On April 5 and June 8, 2017, the U.S. House of Representatives passed bills (the Financial Institution Bankruptcy Act of 2017 ("FIBA") and the Financial CHOICE Act of 2017) that would allow financial institutions to seek protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

In bankruptcy cases under chapter 11, debtors sometimes opt for a "structured dismissal" when a consensual plan of reorganization or liquidation cannot be reached or conversion to chapter 7 would be too costly. In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 2017 BL 89680 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions in structured dismissals which violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules.