On 16 April 2014 the Estonian Parliament adopted amendments to the bankruptcy and reorganisation laws. The law has now been published in Riigi Teataja (the official journal) and will enter into force on 19 May 2014.

Recently the German Federal Government introduced a reform of the German Insolvency Code by adopting a draft bill of an Act to Further Facilitate the Restructuring of Businesses (the “Bill”). The Bill primarily focuses on the facilitation of insolvency plans as a tool for restructurings and to eliminate certain obstacles of the German insolvency law. If enacted as proposed, the Bill would simplify the purchase of shares of an insolvent company and would give investors more influence and flexibility in in-solvency plan proceedings.

INSOLVENCY PLANS

Last month, the German Ministry for Justice and Legal Affairs (Bundesjustizministerium) published a draft law proposal aimed at further "facilitating the restructuring of businesses".

Mining the wreckage

This article was first published on the Financial Times website on 10 September 2018.

It was the biggest bankruptcy in history – ten times bigger than Enron – and the tipping point into a global recession.

But what really happened on the ground during those fateful days, as the myth of certain banks being ‘too-big-to-fail’ exploded on a global scale?

It was a huge historical event, yet one with a distinctly human face.

Singapore’s new (the Omnibus Bill) was passed by parliament on 1 October 2018 and is expected to come into force later this year or in early 2019.

The Omnibus Bill, which was introduced to parliament on 10 September 2018, consolidates Singapore's corporate and personal insolvency and restructuring laws into a single enactment. It also generally updates the insolvency legislation and introduces a significant number of new provisions, particularly in respect of corporate insolvency.

The ability to avoid fraudulent or preferential transfers is a fundamental part of U.S. bankruptcy law. However, when a transfer by a U.S. entity takes place outside the U.S. to a non-U.S. transferee—as is increasingly common in the global economy—courts disagree as to whether the Bankruptcy Code’s avoidance provisions can apply extraterritorially to avoid the transfer and recover the transferred assets. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York widens a rift among the courts on this issue. In Spizz v. Goldfarb Seligman & Co.

THE RULING: CHAPTER 15 DEBTORS CAN ASSERT AVOIDANCE ACTIONS UNDER STATE LAW

Since the bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping Co. Ltd., so many articles have been written about how it happened, why it happened, and what can be learned from this tragedy. When Hanjin Shipping, once the 7th largest container carrier in the world and the 4th largest container carriers in the transpacific (Asia – US & Canada) trade, filed for bankruptcy, few believed that a “too big to fail” organization like Hanjin would not be given a government bail-out. So, naturally, no one really appreciated the kind of disruption and losses that would subsequently affect the global supply chain.

It has become increasingly common for companies needing to restructure to open restructuring / insolvency proceedings in a jurisdiction outside of where their centre of corporate control is located or assets are concentrated. Forum shopping in a restructuring context is becoming more common place, however it also remains highly controversial. The panelists at the INSOL breakout session, A Hitchhikers Guide of Forum Shopping, considered what makes a good forum for restructuring / insolvency, and whether forum shopping is desirable or undesirable.

The English Court granted recognition of Chapter 11 proceedings in relation to a company that was incorporated in the UK but had its centre of main interests ("COMI") in the United States, confirming that the Directors were foreign representatives for the purpose of the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("the Regulations").