The government's response to the recent Insolvency and Corporate Governance Consultation has increased the emphasis on flexibility and the restructure and rescue of businesses. However, along with the recent October Budget, there are proposed reforms which are set to increase the focus and accountability for directors of companies.
Preliminary Moratorium
One of the key new proposals to be introduced with the aim of rescuing companies is a "Preliminary Moratorium".
For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.
U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." Prior to the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, the procedure for obtaining comity from a U.S. court in cases involving a foreign bankruptcy or insolvency case was haphazard and unpredictable. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois indicates that the enactment of chapter 15 was a game changer in this context. In Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v.
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Following the decision in Wagner v White, Connor Pierce, solicitor at Ashfords LLP, looks at how the courts have been dealing with bankruptcy petitions which lenders have presented against guarantors when the principal borrower fails to repay the loan. Pierce also considers the ways in which guarantors have tried to have the lender’s statutory demand set aside. Wagner v White [2018] EWHC 2882 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 16 (Nov)
Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: Connor Pierce, solicitor at Ashfords LLP, examines a High Court judge’s dismissal of an appeal against a deputy registrar’s refusal to set aside a statutory demand made on the appellant, which was based on a personal guarantee he had given the respondent.
Wagner v White [2018] EWHC 2882 (Ch), [2018] All ER (D) 16 (Nov)
What are the practical implications of this case?
The case is a useful authority for statutory demands founded on personal guarantees.
The Facts
In In re Avanti Commc'ns Grp. PLC, 582 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018), Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code enforcing a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by a court in England that included nonconsensual third-party releases. Judge Glenn determined that such releases should be recognized and enforced consistent with principles of "comity" and cooperation with foreign courts inherent under chapter 15.
The Facts
Following a bankruptcy petition on 23 January 2007, Mr Eaitisham Ahmed had entered an IVA which was approved as a result of votes of family members who claimed to be creditors. The IVA was challenged and a bankruptcy order was made on 21 April 2009. David Ingram and Michaela Hall were appointed as Joint Trustees on 14 April 2010, following a trustee in bankruptcy initially appointed on or around the time of the bankruptcy order.
Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.
Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.