Introduction

The UNCITRAL Model Law on the Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency Related Judgments (‘the New Model Law’) is intended to fill the gaps that currently exist in cross-border conventions as they apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments in insolvency proceedings.

Judgment was handed down in the High Court this morning, in a case where recognition of a winding-up of a solvent foreign investment fund was granted under the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 ("CBIR").

This is the first time that the English Court has examined in detail the UNCITRAL Model Law on insolvency and the interplay with its Guides to Enactment, as well as case law from various jurisdictions concerning its application to solvent scenarios. Mrs Justice Falk found that:

On 26 July 2010, the Insolvency Service issued proposals for a new type of short-term restructuring moratorium. The moratorium would be available through a court-based process to companies with a viable business and the general support of creditors. The proposed moratorium could have the potential to encourage more companies to view the UK as an attractive jurisdiction for restructuring.

What are the proposals?

The main features are:

In the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance SA [2010] EWCA Civ 895, [2010] All ER (D) 358 (Jul), the English Court of Appeal, Civil Division, determined that a U.S. bankruptcy court’s monetary default judgment obtained against Eurofinance and its principals, British citizens, was enforceable. In doing so, the Court of Appeal favored a “universal” approach to international bankruptcy cases and recognized adversary proceedings as part and parcel of the main bankruptcy case under American bankruptcy rules.

Arbitration proceedings in England are creatures of contract, arising out of the agreement between the parties to refer their disputes to arbitration. However, except in limited circumstances, when one of the parties to an arbitration agreement becomes insolvent, England’s statutory insolvency regime takes precedence over the rules of the arbitration.

The Insolvency Regime in England and Wales

The case of D/S Norden A/S v Samsun Logix Corp & Ors [2009] EWHC 2304 (Ch) concerned international co-operation in insolvency proceedings under the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency. S was subject to insolvency proceedings in Korea. The English court, having recognised the Korean insolvency proceedings, had granted a stay on creditors issuing proceedings against S and its property.

Re Stanford International Bank Limited and others [2009] EWHC 1441 (Ch) provides answers to key questions on the UNCITRAL Model Law on cross-border insolvency. What will courts recognise as a “foreign proceeding”? What types of insolvency practitioners will qualify as “foreign representatives”? Is a company’s “centre of main interests” (COMI) always in the country of its registered office? Linda Ralli considers the practical implications for banks which have lent to foreign companies where they are looking to enforce in England.

Facts

In December 2018, at its 54th session in Vienna, Working Group V (Insolvency Law) of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) discussed revisions to its Enterprise Group Insolvency: Draft Model Law (the "EGI Model Law") as well as the EGI Model Law’s Guide to Enactment.

With the significant increase in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency filings in the 43 nations or territories that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), including the U.S., the incidence of "COMI migration"—the shifting of a debtor’s "center of main interests" ("COMI") to a country with more favorable insolvency laws—has also increased. As demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S.

David Conaway [email protected] 704.945.2149 Manufacturing Customers Vendors Supply Chain Insolvency Litigation Commercial and Financial Contracts Cross-Border

BACKGROUND