Given the current worldwide economic climate, the number of companies facing insolvency that have assets in multiple jurisdictions around the world has increased dramatically. It is not unusual in today’s global economy for a corporation to have commercial offices, production plants and/ or research facilities in many different countries. A company that is faced with the bleak picture of insolvency may be forced to make decisions on whether to seek protection under a number of different statutory structures.

As previously reported, the International Insolvency Institute will hold its Ninth Annual International Insolvency Conference at Columbia University in New York on June 18 and 19, 2009. This Conference is likely to be the finest international insolvency Conference of the year and has an exceptionally talented and prominent faculty that will address today’s critical international insolvency issues and developments. Among the highlights of the Conference are the following:

From modest beginnings, the concept of Cross-Border Insolvency Protocols as a means of enhancing cooperation between administrations in international cases has become an established practice in major cases. From their origins in the International Bar Association’s Cross-Border Insolvency Concordat through the early Protocols in Maxwell Communication and Everfresh Beverages, Protocols have become a mainstay in international reorganizations and restructurings.

The shipping industry was arguably one of the hardest hit by the downturn that spread around the world late last year. The severe shipping slump, evidenced by a 93.5 per cent fall in the Baltic Dry Index between the summer of 2008 and December 2008, inevitably led to insolvencies of shipping companies across the globe1. This article briefly considers the unique challenges that insolvency practitioners face when balancing insolvency procedures against the application of maritime law.

The Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has held that a bankruptcy trustee appointed in a non-U.S. bankruptcy case did not need authority from a U.S. court to take possession and control of a foreign debtor’s assets located in the United States, and transfer them.

Clients who desire to participate in the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”) 2008 Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“Lehman”) Credit Default Swap (“CDS”) Settlement Protocol (the “Settlement Protocol”) must do so by Wednesday, October 8, 2008 at 5:00 p.m. (New York time). The period to join the Settlement Protocol opens on Monday, October 6, 2008; accordingly, there is a relatively narrow window for clients to elect to participate.

Courts disagree over whether a foreign bankruptcy case can be recognized under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code if the foreign debtor does not reside or have assets or a place of business in the United States. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit staked out its position on this issue in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 737 F.3d 238 (2d Cir. 2013), ruling that the provision of the Bankruptcy Code requiring U.S. residency, assets, or a place of business applies in chapter 15 cases as well as cases filed under other chapters.

Welcome to the first issue of Insolvency Matters, our round-up of recent legal developments affecting insolvency and restructuring.

Case round-up

KENYA

Economic overview

TO BE OR NOT TO BE (SOLVENT) - A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGAPORE, UK, US, AND AUSTRALIA ON RECOGNISING FOREIGN PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE UNCITRAL MODEL LAW PIERRE DZAKPASU, ANNE JESUDASON, FLORENCE LI The recent case of Ascentra Holdings, Inc v. SPGK Pte Ltd [2023] SGCA 32 (Ascentra) has drawn a line in the sand in the Singapore court's interpretation of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (UNCITRAL Model Law), as incorporated in the Third Schedule of the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (IRDA) to create the Singapore Model Law.