A recent Isle of Man case, Interdevelco Limited v. Waste2energy Group Holdings plc, demonstrates that the debate around how courts should approach international insolvency legislation rages on. The decision emphasised the importance of the principle of universality, the concept that there should be one insolvency proceeding under which all creditors’ claims can be collectively assessed and administered. This approach contrasts with that taken by the Supreme Court of England and Wales in the two recent cases of Rubin v.
26 November 2013
[2013] EWHC 3689 (Comm)
Commercial Court, Queen's Bench Division (Burton J)
Foreign insolvency proceedings do not override arbitration agreements
The trustee of a large bankruptcy in Israel commenced proceedings in the Israeli insolvency court against Dr Bannai to recover assets (worth $150m) said to be due to the bankrupt under a 2002 agreement. The 2002 agreement was governed by English law and contained a London arbitration clause which it was accepted covered the claims in question.
The Court of Appeal of Jersey has now considered in an appeal against the Royal Court’s decision of 10 January 2018 the case of a UK trustee in bankruptcy (the “Trustee”), whose appointment had been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who had been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, who was later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes (in this case an Information Notice issued by HMRC pursuant to Schedule 36 of the UK Finance Act 2008 (the “
The Bankruptcy Filing
Sale Hearing
On September 20, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court approved the sale of certain assets of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. ("LBHI") and Lehman Brothers Inc. ("LBI"),1 including those related to its Canadian Capital Markets and Investment Banking businesses, to Barclays Capital, Inc. ("Barclays"). The sale was approved despite the filing of over 80 objections raising a number of procedural and substantive issues. The Purchase and Sale Agreement was subsequently amended, and a clarifying letter filed, to address a number of the questions and concerns raised.
- Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Litigation Capital Funding [2017]JRC171 ("the September judgment")
- Harbour Fund II LP v. (1) Orb a.r.l. (2) Dr Gail Cochrane [2017]JRC007 ("the January judgment")
- Representation of the Viscount re Cochrane and Orb a.r.l. [2017]JRC025 ("the February judgment")
The high profile cross border insolvency of Orb a.r.l. ("Orb") has been the subject of three linked judgments from the Royal Court in Jersey.
The Royal Court of Jersey was recently required to consider its approach when a trustee in bankruptcy appointed in a foreign jurisdiction (the “Trustee”), whose appointment has been recognised in Jersey by order of the Court and who has been authorised to obtain documents and/or information for particular purposes, is later subject to coercive measures in his home jurisdiction requiring the disclosure of such material for different, unauthorised purposes.
The Jersey Court exercised their discretion and consented to vary the terms of Recognition and Consent Orders to allow a Trustee in Bankruptcy to comply with an Information Notice served by HMRC in relation to the Bankrupt's tax affairs.
The high profile insolvency of Jersey company Orb a.r.l (Orb) and its sole shareholder Dr Gail Cochrane (Dr Cochrane), a local GP, has firmly placed Jersey's insolvency regime in the spotlight. The matter commenced in late 2016 and has continued to build throughout the course of 2017 and 2018, with related proceedings in the BVI and before the High Court in England and interested parties ranging from the Serious Fraud Office to law firms.
Key Points
- COMI of Jersey companies held to be in England and Wales
- Argument of improper motive generally insignificant where purpose of administration can be achieved
The Facts