1 / 6

Cross Border Restructuring and the Global Village

Cross Border Restructuring and the Global Village. Universalism in 2013 Louise Verrill Brown Rudnick LLP. The Four Gateways. Council Regulation ECI 346/2000 (EC Insolvency Regulation) – Reciprocal in EU The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) - Incremental

howe
Download Presentation

Cross Border Restructuring and the Global Village

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cross Border Restructuring and the Global Village Universalism in 2013 Louise Verrill Brown Rudnick LLP

  2. The Four Gateways • Council Regulation ECI 346/2000 (EC Insolvency Regulation) – Reciprocal in EU • The Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 (“CBIR”) - Incremental Introduced the 1997 UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency • Very similar to the EC Regulation • In the US, enshrined as Chapter 15 • Non-mutual recognition • Section 426 Insolvency Act 1986 – Designated Territories • Universalism = insolvency proceedings should apply worldwide • Comity = uniformity between proceedings in different jurisdictions • Common Law – Emasculated Universality • In personam judgments capable of enforcement if: • presence overseas • claim or counterclaim • submission to jurisdiction

  3. Rubin v Eurofinance [2009] EWHC 2129 (CH) • Claims in Chapter 11 proceedings against our clients regarding the benefits they received • Adversary proceedings against our clients. Chose not to appear • Summary and default judgment – 22/7/08 • Receivers sought to enforce the judgment in England • UK Court of First Instance • Recognition sought under CBIR as foreign main proceedings and as foreign representatives and judgment to be enforced (CPR 70 and 73) • High Court (Nicholas Strauss QC) recognised receivers but refused to enforce judgment • No enforcement under CBIR

  4. Court of Appeal • Court of Appeal allowed enforcement under the common law: • Ordinary rules do not apply to bankruptcy • Bankruptcy proceedings include 238/239 equivalent • NY orders part of bankruptcy proceedings • Collective enforcement • Bankruptcy should be unitary and universal • No enforcement under Article 27 CBIR but maximum assistance Supreme Court • Enforcement under rules of private international law, not common law • No special status • Any changes to be made by legislators • CBIR do not provide for enforcement • Nor does s426

  5. Contrast with:- • Homburg Invest Inc “H11” • Canadian real estate company – over 100 Canadian and Dutch subsidiaries • Assets in Canada, US, Germany, Netherlands and Latvia • In excess of Euro1billion in debt • Euro400million in bonds mainly held by Dutch pensioners • Netherlands not signatory to UNCITRAL • Global economic crisis leaves Homburg Invest Inc unable to service debt • Canadian Court has recently approved a plan produced in the Canadian CCAA process to restructure HII implementation in US and the Netherlands • Following extensive advocacy and marketing of the plan it has been agreed by all the creditors in the Netherlands and Canada

  6. Louise Verrill Partner Tel +44 (0)20 7851 6072 lverrill@brownrudnick.com

More Related