Much has already been written about the proposal for the “Second Chance” directive (“Proposal“) published in November 2016 which is still being debated by the EU bodies – and rightly so. Harmonisation of insolvency law across the EU is needed as one in four insolvency proceedings is a cross-border insolvency and creditors need to know what to expect in other EU countries and that the courts and practitioners cooperate in an efficient way.

On September 22, 2017, the First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court, and overruled its own prior guidance, to hold that a committee of unsecured creditors had the right to be heard in adversary proceedings related to the restructuring of Puerto Rico’s debt. The Court’s decision in Assured Guar. Corp. v. Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for P.R. (In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd.

Regulation 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015

With commercial activities increasingly having an impact across borders in the European market, it has become increasingly necessary to introduce supranational legislation to regulate those activities. In particular, there is a need to make cross-border insolvency proceedings convenient, consistent, effective and efficient across Europe.

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:

Among other strategic considerations a financially troubled company must grapple with as it prepares for a potential bankruptcy filing is how best to effectively implement necessary workforce reductions as part of its overall reorganization efforts. A workforce reduction could potentially give rise to severance and other employee obligations, and, under certain circumstances, could also give rise to significant WARN Act claims.

The UK Pension Protection Fund (PPF) is reviewing its insolvency risk model with Experian. The proposals being considered are particularly relevant to the financial services and charity sectors. They would be introduced from 2018/2019 (and will not be part of the draft levy rules and levy estimate for 2017/18, which we expect will contain few changes).

In summary, the PPF is considering:

This article forms part of our litigation funding series and discusses a key decision that has the potential to significantly support the due diligence efforts of litigation funders in external administration contexts.