The English Court has recently considered who can be recognised as “foreign representatives” under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) in the case of Re 19 Entertainment Limited, about a US company in Chapter 11. The Re 19 Entertainment judgment appears to be the first English case where directors of a company in Chapter 11 proceedings were recognised as “foreign representatives.”

On 15 January 2018, Carillion, the UK’s second-largest builder and one of the Government’s largest contractors, was placed into compulsory liquidation and the Official Receiver was appointed as liquidator, with Michael John Andrew Jervis, David James Kelly, David Christian Chubb, Peter Dickens, David Matthew Hammond and Russell Downs of PwC being appointed as special managers to assist in the wind down of the business and realisation of its assets.

The recent case ofCrumper v Candey Ltd [2017] EWCH 1511 (Ch) delivered an updated analysis of the operation of section 245 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (“s245”). Although the insolvency proceedings (and much of the litigation before and after the insolvency commenced) originated in the British Virgin Islands, they were recognised in England and Wales under the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006.

On August 4, 2017, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. (In re AE Liquidation, Inc.), 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14359 (3d Cir.

Before Polish insolvency law was significantly amended in January 2016, restructurings were extremely rare, with corporate insolvencies ending in liquidation in more than 90% of all cases. At that point, the number of insolvencies ending in the liquidation of the debtor’s assets significantly exceeded successful restructurings – the focus had been mainly on satisfying the creditors – and allowing the debtor to continue his business was not a major priority for the legislator and the courts.

In the recent case of Cherkasov & others v Olegovich [2017] EWHC 756 (Ch) the English courts considered the public policy exception set out in Article 6 Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (CBIR) and whether security for costs could be ordered against the official receiver of a Russian company (who had obtained recognition in England under CIBR) when he applied for an order for the production of evidence by some of the former managers of a Russian company under section 236 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA).

“In bankruptcy, as in life, timing can be everything” – the Fifth Circuit.

The court ruled to allow the sale of the production unit with assignment to the acquirer of the agreements involving the insolvent companies affected by the transfer of the production unit and necessary for its continuance.

If severe losses and insolvency occur, the directors’ duty to seek wind -up no longer applies if the company files for insolvency and is declared insolvent. While the composition is being carried out, the duty to seek wind-up and the directors’ resulting liability will not arise.

This ruling clarifies the role of the directors’ corporate duties in the event that legal grounds can be attributed to the company for wind-up due to losses, and the obligation to file for insolvency if the company becomes insolvent.

I ARTICLE 233(5) OF THE CODE OF INSOLVENCY AND RECOVERY OF COMPANIES