The question of what happens to an international arbitration when a party files for bankruptcy in the United States is arising with increasing frequency. In the United States, the public policy interests that underlie both bankruptcy and arbitration legislation sometimes clash on critical points. The federal courts have developed competing approaches to addressing these issues. This fractured caselaw introduces uncertainty at the intersection of arbitration and bankruptcy.

US Bankruptcy Code

Overview

German Insolvency Law

German insolvency law is governed by a comprehensive Insolvency Code which entered into force on January 1, 1999 and has been amended from time to time, the last major reform being the Act for the Further Facilitation of the Restructuring of Companies (ESUG) which largely came into force as of 1 March 2012. There is only one primary uniform insolvency procedure which applies to both individuals and companies. In the following, we focus on companies.

In a decision that will be of great interest to the creditor community, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, on November 5, 2009, that the Bankruptcy Code does not bar an unsecured claim for post-petition attorneys’ fees that was authorized under a valid prepetition contract. The case, Ogle v. Fidelity & Deposit Company of Maryland,1 extends and clarifies the US Supreme Court’s March 2007 decision in the Travelers case,2 which opened the door for such a ruling.

The Court of Appeal has confirmed that the costs of complying with Financial Support Directions (“FSDs”) proposed to be issued to certain Nortel and Lehman companies by the Pensions Regulator (“TPR”) qualify as “super priority” administration expenses, payable in priority to unsecured creditors, floating charge holders and the administrators’ own fees.

The question

Following an informal consultation in late 2008, the DWP is now consulting formally about changes to the Employer Debt Regulations made under s75 Pensions Act 1995. The consultation document can be found at www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations/2009.

The main proposed changes are intended to facilitate corporate restructurings, but other changes are designed to address some technical problems with the Regulations.

Corporate restructurings

Experienced insolvency practitioners in Hong Kong are all familiar with Hong Kong Court of Appeal's decision of 1 March 2006 in the liquidation of Legend International Resorts Limited1.

The District Court for the Southern District of New York recently issued an opinion in Picard v. Katz, et al., (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC),1 which limits avoidance actions against a debtor-broker’s customers to those arising under federal law based on actual, rather than constructive, fraud. The decision was issued by US District Judge Rakoff in the Trustee’s suit against the owners of the New York Mets (along with certain of their friends, family and associates).

The Honourable Mr Justice Harris, the incumbent Companies Judge, has continued the recent development of cross-border assistance in insolvency matters. An example is his Lordship's decision in Re Centaur Litigation SPC (In Liquidation)(HCMP 3389/2015, 10 March 2016), which relates to an application by the liquidators of three companies incorporated and being wound up in the Cayman Islands.