The Insolvency Service recently published a consultation with respect to the proposed implementation of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments, which concerns cross-border recognition of judgments associated with insolvency proceedings, an

Introduction

Businesses are increasingly spreading their footprint across jurisdictions, be it through the diversified locations of their assets or operations. What this means is that, if and when the need to resolve financial distress arises, such businesses may need to select a forum that will serve as an effective base for the management of the cross-border legal issues.

The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 was enacted to facilitate insolvency resolution in a timebound manner, and maximise value realisation for stakeholders. Although it has been amended 6 times since its notification, issues remain. As the Legislature appears set to amend the Code once again, this article examines stakeholders’ issues and explores the issues the amendments may address.

On July 7, 2022, the UK Insolvency Service, an executive agency of government responsible for a variety of roles in administering the UK insolvency regime, published a consultation on the UK’s proposed adoption of two UNCITRAL Model Laws on insolvency, inviting responses (the “Consultation”).

In July, the Government published its report on The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) introducing two new Model Laws with the aim of improving harmonisation of international trade and insolvency procedures: the Model Law on Enterprise Group Insolvency (MLEG) and the Model Law on Recognition and Enforcement of Insolvency-Related Judgments (MLIJ).The Insolvency Service is proposing to adopt the new measures contained in the MLEG and MLIJ as set out below.

Background

The regime under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“IBC”), is largely creditor centric. In fact, extraordinary as it may sound, corporate insolvency resolution process (“CIRP”) under IBC is nothing short of a puppet show, with the Committee of Creditors (“CoC”) as the puppet master. The CoC, comprising of financial creditors of the corporate debtor, is paramount in terms of making the most significant decisions of the process and plays a vital role in resolving the debt.

Robert L Rauch, Miller Buckfire & Co

This is an extract from the second edition of The Guide to Restructuring published by Latin Lawyer. The whole publication is available here.

Good afternoon.

Following are this week’s summaries of the Court of Appeal for Ontario for the week of August 22, 2022.

In Mundo Media Ltd. (Re), the Court refused leave to appeal in a bankruptcy case where a debtor of the bankrupt sought to stay the bankruptcy proceeding in favour of international arbitration. The single proceeding model permits a bankruptcy court to override arbitration agreements.

Restructuring debt obligations under Singapore law can be an attractive option for companies seeking debtor-led reorganisations, as the country aims to be a centre for debt restructuring in Asia. There are options for non-Singapore companies to take advantage of the jurisdiction’s scheme of arrangement regime.

The Singapore High Court has clarified the definition of “centre of main interests” in the context of a crypto exchange group seeking to restructure its collective debts in Singapore. The analysis has implications to any group business which has interconnected shared services provided by the group companies in a collective service “ecosystem” to customers.