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

Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq., provides the legal framework by which U.S. bankruptcy courts recognize foreign insolvency proceedings of companies that have assets and operations in more than one country. Congress added Chapter 15 to the Bankruptcy Code with the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Like any new law, the application and limits of Chapter 15 are developing through jurisprudence.

Introduction

For more than a century, a creditor holding English law governed debt relied on the principle (known as the “rule in Gibbs ”) that a debt governed by English law cannot be discharged by a foreign insolvency proceeding, provided that the creditor does not submit to that proceeding.

Se trata de un sumario y elocuentememo firmado por dos juristas de Kirkland & Ellis LLP, London, y publicado enInternational Corporate Rescue, vol. 15, issue 6, 2018, que resumo en lo que importa. Siempre suponiendo un hard Brexit. (1) Los tribunales de UK no reconocerán —salvo implementación por UK de la Ley Modelo de UNCITRAL— procedimientos de insolvencia extranjeros si afectan a titulares de créditos sometidos a Derecho inglés que disienten del acuerdo y no estuvieron presentes en el procedimiento extranjero.

The English courts have recently wrestled with the Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) in a case about the lifting of the automatic stay on proceedings against Korean company STX Offshore & Shipbuilding Co Ltd

Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code permits a foreign representative of a foreign insolvency proceeding to seek a bankruptcy court’s assistance in an ancillary proceeding upon recognition of the foreign proceeding. Upon recognition, Chapter 15 empowers a bankruptcy court to grant broad relief to a foreign representative to protect the assets of the debtor or the interests of its creditors in the United States.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit recently held in Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), 2013 BL 341634 (2d Cir. Dec. 11, 2013), that section 109(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a debtor "under this title" to have a domicile, a place of business, or property in the U.S., applies in cases under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code.