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.

In Judge Glenn’s recent lengthy decision recognizing and enforcing a restructuring plan in the chapter 15 proceedings of In re Agrokor1, a Croatian company in Croatian insolvency proceedings, he highlighted that the concept of comity – respect for rulings in other countries – remains an important U.S.

The Royal Court in Jersey has a varied and challenging workload. The cases that have come before it this quarter certainly live up to that description. Here we discuss just a handful of cases that the Royal Court has determined, that, whilst in some respects are unremarkable, in other respects serve to illustrate the breadth of the experience that the Royal Court judiciary possesses.

Representation of Private Equity Fund Finance Limited [2018] JRC 194

Advocates Mathew Newman and Sam Dingle acted for the Joint Administrators of a Guernsey company (Company), which was a party to ongoing court proceedings in England.

The Joint Administrators applied to the Royal Court of Guernsey seeking an order that it issue a Letter of Request to the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, requesting the High Court to act in aid of and auxiliary to the Royal Court pursuant to section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (1986 Act) in recognising the appointment of the Joint Administrators as administrators of the Company.

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.

Introduction

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code, which deals with cross-border insolvency cases, took effect nearly 11 years ago.(1) Congress enacted Chapter 15 in 2005 to replace Bankruptcy Code Section 304, which previously addressed transnational insolvencies.(2) Chapter 15 largely incorporates the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency, which was promulgated in May 1997. The Model Law is designed:

Introduction

* This article was first published by INSOL International on March 16, 2015.

Upholds Extraterritorial Application of 11 U.S.C. § 362 Automatic Stay

On September 26, 2014, in the Farnum case (Krys v. Farnum Place, LLC (In re Fairfield Sentry Ltd.), 768 F.3d 239 (2d Cir. 2014)) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that Bankruptcy Code section 363 review applied to a transfer of a Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) claim held by an off-shore entity in foreign liquidation proceedings recognized in the United States. The decision is significant for two reasons.

Those of us old enough to remember the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NAFTA) recall its promise of free movement of goods, services, persons, and capital between Canada, the United States, and Mexico, and greater economic prosperity in each of these countries.