The significant increase in the number of companies passing into liquidation in the current economic climate has focussed Courts on whether they can summons a non-resident. Dispute Resolution Associate, Justin Le Blond, examines the position.
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.
On 26 July 2010, the Insolvency Service issued proposals for a new type of short-term restructuring moratorium. The moratorium would be available through a court-based process to companies with a viable business and the general support of creditors. The proposed moratorium could have the potential to encourage more companies to view the UK as an attractive jurisdiction for restructuring.
What are the proposals?
The main features are:
Last Friday, October 13, Judge Sean H. Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued an opinion addressing the presumption against extraterritoriality of US law as well as the limits of the doctrine of international comity.
In a world of free-ranging capital and cross-border transactions, the question of whether US courts will apply US law to transactions taking place in other countries is important. It is therefore a matter of both interest and concern that judges in the Southern District of New York have reached opposite conclusions when asked to give extraterritorial effect to the avoidance or 'clawback' provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.
Canon of statutory construction
The recent decisions in Re MF Global UK Ltd and Re Omni Trustees Ltd give conflicting views as to whether section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 has extra-territorial effect. In this article, we look at the reasoning in the two judgments and discuss a possible further argument for extra-territorial effect.
The conflicting rulings on section 236
Key points
- Section 236 (inquiry into company’s dealings) does not have extra-territorial effect
- Section 237(3) (examination) only has extra-territorial effect where appropriate machinery exists in the foreign jurisdiction
- Taking of Evidence Regulation not available where litigation not commenced or contemplated
The facts
Key Points
- A company in liquidation will not be stopped, on the basis that it was a party to wrongdoing complained of, from bringing claims against directors and other parties for wrongdoing, where the company can be said to be a victim of the wrongdoing.
- Section 213 Insolvency Act 1986 (fraudulent trading) has extraterritorial effect.
The Facts
Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC, 12-mc-115 (S.D.N.Y. July 6, 2014) [click for opinion]