In a July 12, 2007 post, we reported on issues relating to HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited (“HIH”). The question before the court was whether it had jurisdiction to entertain a request under the Insolvency Act for directions to the liquidators in England to transfer assets collected by them to the liquidators in an Australian liquidation. The Court of Appeal held that it would not direct a transfer of the English assets by the English provisional liquidators to the Australian liquidators because to do so would prejudice the interests of many of the creditors.

This article sets out the potential impact in the BVI and Cayman of the much anticipated Supreme Court decision in Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2012] UKSC 46, which was handed down on 24 October 2012. Rubin deals with the issue of whether orders made in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States can be enforced as judgments of the English Courts.

COMPETING SETS OF RULES AND PRINCIPLES

Below are this week’s summaries of the civil decisions of the Court of Appeal.

Congratulations to our very own Bill Anderson for succeeding on our client’s appeal in Holmes v. Hatch Ltd., 2017 ONCA 880.

In this Employment law decision, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal from the motion judge’s decision granting summary judgment against our client on the basis that the motion judge was not at liberty to find liability on a legal theory that was not pleaded by the plaintiff and which our client did not have an opportunity to properly address in the evidence.

Until now the 1981 English case of The Halcyon Isle has been the principle authority on maritime liens and conflict of laws in Anglo-Common law jurisdictions. In that case, which was on appeal from the Singapore courts, the majority of the Privy Council held that the recognition and enforcement of maritime liens were to be determined according to the law of the forum in which the proceedings were commenced (i.e. the lex fori).

1 │ © 2016 Morrison & Foerster (UK) LLP | mofo.com ATTORNEY ADVERTISING 7 July 2016 BREXIT: IMPACT ON RESTRUCTURING AND INSOLVENCY FOR COMPANIES By Sonya Van de Graaff, Peter Declercq, and Howard Morris The process of Brexit will take many years, and the implications for our clients’ businesses will unfold over time. Our MoFo Brexit Task Force is coordinating Brexit-related legal analysis across all of our offices, and working with clients on key concerns and issues, now and in the coming weeks and months. We will also continue to provide MoFo Brexit Briefings on a range of key issues.

The Insolvency Regulation aims to establish procedural rules on jurisdiction and applicable law in relation to insolvency proceedings, and to aid the mutual recognition of cross-border insolvency proceedings in EU Member States. It is intended to deter parties from forum shopping within the EU in relation to insolvency proceedings. However it does not seek to harmonize substantive insolvency law.

In Europe each year there are an estimated 200,000 corporate insolvencies. More than half of the companies set up do not survive their first five years of trading and more than 1.7 million jobs are lost every year as a result. One in five of those companies will have international operations that cross national borders.

The European Union (EU) has sought to introduce an element of harmonization across its Member States, to facilitate the effective operation of cross-border insolvencies.

On 30 March 2012, the European Commission published a consultation on the future of European insolvency law.

The cornerstone of European insolvency law is Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000, known as the Insolvency Regulation. The Insolvency Regulation has been in force since 31 May 2002 and applies whenever a debtor has assets or creditors in more than one member state. It sets out provisions in relation to jurisdiction, recognition, applicable law and the coordination of insolvency proceedings opened in several member states.

Recent changes in Peruvian insolvency laws1 will now allow financial institutions and insurance company counterparties to close-out and net obligations under derivatives and repurchase agreements with Peruvian financial institutions or insurance companies which become subject to bankruptcy proceedings.

In the Ontario case of Re Xerium Technologies Inc., the Superior Court of Justice (the “Ontario Court”) was asked to recognize an order made by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the “U.S. Court”) approving a prepackaged plan of reorganization (the “Plan”) of the debtors, Xerium Technologies Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Xerium”), made under Chapter 11 of the United States Code (the “U.S. Bankruptcy Code”).