As 26 June 2017 approaches – the date of entry into effect of the Recast EU Insolvency Regulation (2015/8484/EU) – we look in detail at the new provisions for co-ordinating the insolvency proceedings of members of a pan-European group of companies and consider whether the new proposals for co-operation will be compulsory, the practicalities of who will pay the co-ordinator’s fees and whether the creditors can have a say in the process.

BACKGROUND

We have written in the past about the doctrine of equitable mootness. A March 30, 2017 per curiam affirmance by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Beem v. Ferguson (In re Ferguson) explores the concept and limitations of equitable mootness and distinguishes it from the related doctrine of constitutional mootness.

The recent case of Thomas & another v Frogmore Real Estate Partners & others [2017] EWHC 25 (Ch) provides useful guidance for anyone analyzing the centre of main interests (“COMI”) of a company not registered in the UK or other EEA state for the purposes of assessing whether or not insolvency proceedings relating to the company can be instigated in the UK courts under the EC Regulation.

The insolvency and bankruptcy regime in India has historically been fragmented, involving a number of regulations implemented by several regulatory authorities and adjudication forums. The introduction of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Insolvency Code) is a significant development aimed at a comprehensive, centralized regime and an efficient procedural framework.

The Insolvency Code is intended to integrate the regulatory framework provided under:

The shipping industry was recently in the headlines when on 31 August 2016 Hanjin Shipping Co filed for bankruptcy protection in the Seoul Central District Court. Hanjin was South Korea’s biggest container carrier and the seventh largest in the world.

When should debt be recharacterized as equity? The answer to this question will have an enormous impact upon expected recovery in bankruptcy since equity does not begin to get paid until all prior classes of claims are paid in full. In a recent unpublished opinion, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals provided some guidance on when and in what circumstances recharacterization is appropriate. The Court’s decision also serves as warning to purchasers of debt that they may not be able to hide behind the original debt transaction in a recharacterization fight.

Over the past few months, we have commented on the steel industry crisis and some of the employment law issues arising from it in the context of insolvency.