In Short

The Situation: Insolvency officeholders increasingly find their investigations into a company's affairs frustrated by the comingling of records on a "group" server. Claims to privilege by other group entities (or even third parties) are then advanced as an obstacle to delivering company records to the officeholder, leading to expensive and logistically complex inspection and review processes that can be a burden on insolvent estates.

Even before chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code was enacted in 2005 to govern cross-border bankruptcy proceedings, the enforceability of a foreign court order approving a restructuring plan that modified or discharged U.S. law-governed debt was well recognized under principles of international comity. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently reaffirmed this concept in In re Modern Land (China) Co., Ltd., 641 B.R. 768 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2022).

As discussed in previous installments of this White Paper series, the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act (the “Bill”)¹ proposes a comprehensive statutory and regulatory framework in an effort to bring stability to the digital asset market. One area of proposed change relates to how digital assets and digital asset exchanges would be treated in bankruptcy. If enacted, the Bill would significantly alter the status quo from a bankruptcy perspective

OVERVIEW OF DIGITAL ASSETS IN BANKRUPTCY

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (“SC”) has recently handed down a decision in the case of BTI v Sequana, dealing with the powers and duties of company directors. The appeal was expected to be of considerable importance.

This alert is especially relevant to companies, and directors of companies, in financial distress, as well as creditors and insolvency practitioners.

Key Takeaways

On July 7, 2022, the UK Insolvency Service, an executive agency of government responsible for a variety of roles in administering the UK insolvency regime, published a consultation on the UK’s proposed adoption of two UNCITRAL Model Laws on insolvency, inviting responses (the “Consultation”).

On 1 August 2022, the English High Court granted the administrators of Petropavlovsk PLC (the “Company”) permission to enter into a sale of its Russian assets to Russian entity UMMC-Invest (the “Proposed Sale”) amidst sanctions concerns.

For background on the Act and the National Security and Investment (NSI) regime, please see our November 2020 Client Alert, August 2021 Client Alert, and

Is the rule in Gibbs justifiable in the context of modern international insolvency laws or is England clinging to an outdated rule simply to keep restructurings here? The rule stems from an 1890 Court of Appeal Case, which holds that only English courts can validate the compromise or discharge of English law governed debt. The rule cuts across the trend of increased cross-border cooperation in insolvency matters – commonly described as the “modified universalist” approach and critics see the rule as a relic of a more Anglo-centric approach to insolvency law.

As Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, governments around the world are coordinating and responding with increasingly severe sanctions and export controls on Russian entities, institutions, and individuals. Insolvency practitioners first wonder whether sanctioned entities, or entities connected to sanctioned individuals, can enter into an insolvency procedure and, if so, how does the insolvency practitioner accept an appointment and get paid?

The National Security Investment Act 2021 (the “Act”) came into effect on 4 January 2022 and introduced a new UK investment screening regime focused on national security risks (the “NSI Regime”). It is similar to the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (“CFIUS”) regime. The Act is wide reaching; it provides the UK government with the power to review and intervene in transactions that may pose a UK national security risk due to a transfer of control of sensitive entities or assets.