Even at first blush, it is apparent that arbitration and insolvency make strange bedfellows.

Suppose you were a German bank lending to a Spanish debtor under a loan agreement governed by German law. Once your Spanish debtor stops paying, the bank would have to obtain a German legal judgment and would then have to enforce it in Spain. Any measure to secure the debtor's assets in the meantime, is typically subject to the jurisdiction where the asset is located, or subject to lengthy recognition proceedings. Having to resort to local law measures usually puts foreign creditors in a worse-off position than local ones.

Fraudulent debtors are trying to use a disputable interpretation of Article 37, para 4 of the Special Pledges Act on the outcome of enforcement over a special pledge against the rights of secured mortgage creditors.

The Bulgarian legislator is notorious for leaving gaps in enacted legislation. Often such legal gaps combined with inexperience, or even worse – corruption of judges, lead to questionable judgments being handed down. Several of these judgments have put mortgage creditors at risk of losing their collateral in the past year.

In December 2013, the Bank of Slovenia adopted exceptional measures resulting in the annulment of financial instruments held by shareholders and subordinated bondholders for the purpose of burden-sharing in rescuing five Slovenian banks.1 In its decision of 19 July 2016, the European Court of Justice confirmed that such burden-sharing is not contrary to EU law; however, the Slovenian public remains divided.

After the SAM HAWK decision in September 2016 restored the status quo in the recognition of foreign maritime liens in Australia (see our briefing http://www.hfw.com/Arrest-of-the-SAM-HAWK-October-2016) two Federal Court decisions in November 2016 bring the year towards a close with the Federal Court’s jurisdiction and application of the Admiralty Act being confirmed on established and predictable grounds.

Since the European Commission adopted the recommendation on restructuring and second chance in 2014, it has been working on the evaluation of its initiative and the introduction of a European legal framework. In 2015 the Capital Markets Union Action Plan included the announcement of a legislative initiative on early restructuring and second chance. Finally, on 22 November 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a European Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks and a second chance for entrepreneurs.

In The Joint Provisional Liquidators of BJB Career Education Company Limited (In Provisional Liquidation) v Xu Zhendong¹, the Court of First Instance considered the Hong Kong courts' common law powers to recognise and assist foreign courts and insolvency practitioners overseeing non-Hong Kong insolvency proceedings.

The questions considered by the court were:

The insolvency of Hanjin Shipping (Hanjin), the world's seventh largest container line, is likely to have a significant impact throughout the maritime sector. In this briefing we provide an overview of some of the potential consequences of Hanjin's insolvency and which parties will be most affected by this development.

Background

At first glance, it seems that cross-border insolvencies between the UK and EU are likely to become more time-consuming, complex and expensive post-Brexit. However, the situation may not be as dire as it first appears due to the existence of alternative legislation and the exemptions to the EU legislation. As with other areas of law, when it comes to insolvencies much will depend on what steps are taken to maintain the current arrangements with the EU or whether they fall away altogether.

Le 1^er septembre 2016 la compagnie Hanjin Shipping Co Ltd (“Hanjin”) première compagnie coréenne de transport maritime par conteneur a sollicité la protection de la loi coréenne sur les faillites et une procédure collective, dite de “réhabilitation”, a été ouverte par les tribunaux de Séoul.