The effect of EU law on UK insolvencies is, as a general rule, limited to cross-border issues. Within the EU, the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings governs all the main jurisdictional and choice of law questions that arise in international insolvencies (with the exception of the insolvencies of banks, insurers and certain investment companies).

The tenth anniversary of the EU Council Regulation on insolvency proceedings (EC No 1346/2000) has arrived amidst wide debate surrounding whether the regulation remains valid and current in its existing form. The European Commission recently launched a consultation examining the current insolvency regime in Europe.

In a decision of 9 June 2016, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, "BGH") has ruled that the determination of the close-out amount in a netting provision based on the German Master Agreement for Financial Derivatives Transactions (Rahmenvertrag für Finanztermingeschäfte or DRV) is not legally effective in the event of insolvency to the extent that it deviates from section 104 of the German Insolvency Code.

The rapid growth of global economy has led to widespread international trade and this expansion in international trade has brought with it increasing possibilities of cross border insolvency proceedings. In its simplest form, Cross Border Insolvency may involve insolvency proceedings in one country with its creditors located in another country/countries on the other hand in the most complex of cases it may involve subsidiaries, assets, operations and creditors in dozens of nations.

Key Issues

The transaction documents (eg ISDA, GMRA or prime brokerage agreements) for derivatives transactions (or other transactions involving netting provisions) are usually governed by English law or New York law. However, there are a number of local law issues which our clients should consider when proposing to enter into such transactions with offshore counterparties, including the following key issues:

In nearly every bankruptcy proceeding there is some constituency that ends up having its claim or interest impaired. Not surprisingly, therefore, these same constituencies would like to avoid that outcome by restricting the debtor’s ability to commence bankruptcy in the first place.

On March 17, 2010 we reported on the decision of a New York intermediate appellate court to apply New York law to disallowed claims under insurance policies issued by Midland Insurance Company, an insolvent multiline insurer placed into liquidation in New York.

The New York Court of Appeals decision on April 5, in the Midland Insurance Company liquidation (In re Liquidation of Midland Insurance Company1) is an important affirmation of policyholder rights. In this decision, New York’s highest court held that a policyholder is entitled to a claim and policy-specific choice of law analysis in the liquidation process, rejecting the Midland liquidator’s effort to make a blanket application of New York law to Midland’s 38,000 policyholders.

Summary

As Ursula the Sea Witch once said “Life’s full of tough choices, isn’t it?”  The Sixth Circuit was recently faced with its own “tough choice” on choice of law in Sutherland v. DCC Litigation Facility, Inc., No. 13-1497 (6th Cir. Feb.