With the enactment of the ipso factoreform in September this year (which commences operation on 1 July 2018), it is the genuine hope of many insolvency practitioners and others in the market that voluntary administration will become a less value-destructive and, therefore, a more useful tool for company restructures.

In the matter of the désastres of Gail Alison Cochrane and Orb a.r.l.

1. Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Litigation Capital Funding [2017]JRC171 ("the September judgment")

2. Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Dr Gail Cochrane [2017]JRC007 ("the January judgment")

3. Representation of the Viscount re Cochrane and Orb a.r.l. [2017]JRC025 ("the February judgment")

Readers will recall that on 23 September 2016 we posted an article about recognition under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) of the Korean rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin Shipping.

FUNDING IN FOCUS CONTENT SERIES REPORT T HREE JULY 2016 2 | VANNIN CAPITAL Funding in Focus Content Series Welcome Welcome to the third edition of Funding in Focus. Since the inception of Funding in Focus, the funding market has grown and developed. This development is reflected in the number, type and complexity of the cases we are being asked to fund across the globe. We have seen an exponential rise in requests for funding in a range of sectors, including in arbitration and insolvency, and in a range of jurisdictions.

The Act on the confirmation of private plans (Wet homologatie onderhands akkoord or WHOA) was submitted to the Dutch parliament last year and, once adopted, introduces a framework under which tailor-made (financial) restructuring plans can be implemented outside formal insolvency proceedings.

The WHOA combines elements of the English Scheme of Arrangements, US Chapter 11 and the EU Restructuring Directive (EU 2019/1023).

The following is an overview of the WHOA's most important features.

The procedure

Summary and Overview

Most of the aspects governing cross-border litigation within the EU are governed by EU Regulation, or by international agreements applicable to the UK by virtue of EU membership. Key aspects relating to commercial litigation will be affected by the UK’s exit from the EU.

What is the preventive restructuring framework and what are its key features?

Where there is a likelihood of insolvency (but importantly where the debtor is not yet insolvent as defined by national law), Member States must provide debtors with access to a preventive restructuring framework that enables them to restructure, with a view to preventing insolvency and ensuring their viability.

The Insolvency Working Group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (“UNCITRAL”⁾¹ has been busy this past year, working on three new model laws and developing work on at least two possible future projects.2 The Insolvency Working Group is responsible for drafting the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the “CBI Model Law”) in 1997, which has since been adopted in 46 countries and is under consideration in several others. In 2005, the United States adopted the CBI Model Law as Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. 

Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.

On 18 December 2018 the English Court of Appeal held in the case of OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan that the rule in Gibbs is still a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law and not to be sidestepped by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations.

Facts

The facts in summary are these: