Britain a "bankruptcy brothel" says Wind Hellas pre-pack creditor

The restructuring of Wind Hellas, a Greek telecoms company, has prompted the Sunday Times to repeat a claim by Bertrand des Pallières, of hedge fund SPQR Capital, that Britain is becoming a bankruptcy brothel.

In this high profile example of aggrieved creditors misconstruing that it is the procedure involved rather than the underlying business failure that causes loss in insolvencies, jurisdiction shopping and bankruptcy tourism have been joined by a more colourful phrase!

Not only was the Centre of Main Interests (COMI) of the relevant Wind Hellas company moved to England from Luxembourg (ie 1300 miles away from Greece rather than 1000), but it was then put through a pre-pack administration (with all the unfortunate connotations that unfortunate phrase has come to bear).

The administrators will have acted in the best interests of the creditors generally, otherwise their regulator and the courts would have been active, especially with aggrieved creditors on the scene, yet still the Sunday Times and the Mail on Sunday chose to suggest that the losses were somehow linked to the insolvency mechanism used.

This may be something of a storm in a teacup in the Wind Hellas administration, but it is regrettable that such shrieking hinders genuine business reconstruction by casting doubt on the flexible, highly-regulated UK insolvency regime, which operates subject to the scrutiny of a highly regarded and equitable court system.

Of course, a Luxembourg insolvency might have suited a particular aggrieved creditor, but the well-established COMI principle allows companies to move between jurisdictions. It’s the debtor’s choice.

In cross-border cases there will often be those who would have preferred a different insolvency regime, but while the UK continues to offer the most varied and flexible system and the experienced and regulated practitioners to make best use of it, debtors – and creditors generally – will benefit.

Poland 1 - Germany 0: Unlawful Attachment in MG Probud

The European Court of Justice (Case Number C-444/07) has held that the German court was not entitled to make an attachment order against the German assets of MG Probud Gdynia sp. z o.o. ('MG Probud'), which was subject to Polish winding up proceedings.

Polish law provides for a stay of enforcement proceedings against the assets of a company that goes into liquidation. Shortly after the Polish proceedings were opened, the local court in Saarbrücken, Germany had ordered an attachment of various bank accounts and claims in Germany on the application of the German Customs Office

The Polish liquidator’s appeal was dismissed by the regional court in Saarbrücken on grounds that ‘there was reason to fear that those responsible within MG Probud would shortly collect the sums payable and transfer the corresponding amount to Poland in order to prevent the German authorities from having access to them’. It was also said that the copy of the judgement enclosed with the appeal was inadequate to enable determination of whether relevant Polish proceedings had been opened.

The ECJ emphasised that it is inherent in the principle of mutual trust it identified in Eurofood IFSC (Case C-341/04) that the court opening main insolvency proceedings examines whether the debtor’s centre of main interest (COMI) is situated in the Member State of that court. In return, the courts of the other Member States recognise the judgement opening main insolvency proceedings, without being able to review the assessment made by the first court as to its jurisdiction.

In this particular case the ECJ held that the documents available to the court contained nothing to affect the presumption in Article 3(1) of the European Insolvency Regulation No 1346/2000 ('the Regulation') that the place of the company’s registered office was the COMI and that this was therefore situated in Poland.

The ECJ also made clear that only the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings is capable of restricting the universal effect of the main insolvency proceedings.

This case illustrates the importance of COMI and it reminds us of the rebuttable presumption that the COMI is at the place of the company’s registered office. Once insolvency proceedings have been opened it is the insolvency law of the Member State in which they were opened that, subject to the exceptions in Articles 5 to 15 of the Regulation, governs the opening, conduct and closure of the insolvency proceedings.

This is of course why battles about the situation of a company’s COMI have been so intense.

In this case, the ECJ has awarded a clear win to the Polish liquidator (and arguably a yellow card to the German authorities!).

Chris Laughton is a Restructuring & Insolvency partner at Mercer & Hole. The views given in this blog are personal to the author, if you would like to discuss the contents of this post with Chris you can call him on 020 7353 1597. 

Sir Allen Stanford - US receiver defeated on COMI

The controversy surrounding Sir Allen Stanford has reached the Royal Courts of Justice. Both the Antiguan liquidator of Stanford International Bank Limited and the US receiver appointed over its assets sought recognition in the UK under The Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. Both sought to be recognised as the foreign representative in foreign main proceedings.

Lewison J noted on 3 July 2009 that “the apparent lack of co-operation between them has resulted in an expensive application at the creditors’ expense.”

The judgement makes clear that The Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, which were of course founded on the UNCITRAL Model Law, are closely tied to the EC Insolvency Regulation, particularly in relation to COMI.

“In my judgement it is a reasonable inference that the intention of the framers of the model law was that COMI in the Model Law would bear the same meanings as in the Regulation since it “corresponds” to the formulation in the EC Regulation.”

The judgement also considered Eurofood on the basis that Lewison J did not need to decide whether he was strictly bound to follow it but the parties agreed that he should do so. He went on to analyse application of the Head Office functions test and the presumption in favour of COMI coinciding with a company’s registered office, disapproving of his own previous judgement in Lennox Holdings, and concluding that the decision in ReCi4net.com Inc, to the effect that the location of the registered office is no more than a factor to be considered was also no longer be followed.

Interestingly, in relation to the presumption, Lewison J distinguishes between the US implementation of the law as Chapter 15 and The Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. In Chapter 15 the registered office is presumed to be the debtors’ COMI in the absence of evidence to the contrary, whereas in The Cross Border Insolvency Regulations 2006, the debtor’s registered office is presumed to be the COMI is absence of proof to the contrary. 

Lewison J notes

“this change of language of the enactment, as it seems to me, may well explain   why the jurisprudence of the American courts has diverged from that of the ECJ”.

As a final point, having decided that the COMI of Stanford International Bank Limited was in Antigua, Lewison J decided that the powers and duties conferred or imposed on the receiver did not amount to a ‘foreign proceeding’ and that the receivership cannot be recognised under The Cross-Border insolvency Regulations 2006.

All in all an innings defeat of the US Receiver by the Antiguan liquidators!

The full judgement is available at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2009/1441.html. 

 Chris Laughton is a partner at Mercer & Hole. The views given in this blog are personal to the author.

European Restructuring: migration and jurisdictional arbitrage

More food for thought in a post by John Armour on the Credit Slips blog.

I agree with the conclusion that:

"we're going to see a number of the highly leveraged buyouts that run into difficulty winding up in formal bankruptcy proceedings, after a workout has been attempted and failed".

And this may well lead to attempts to reform some European bankruptcy codes.

It will also promote and no doubt extend the migration concept (previously discussed here).

Moving a COMI (centre of main interests) to a jurisdiction where the insolvency regime is more suited to concluding a successful restructuring not only can be done, but can add huge value to the restructuring.

Bear Stearns' Hedge Funds' Chapter 15 application rejected on COMI grounds

In a judgement here, published on 30 August 2007, Judge Burton Lifland in the US Bankruptcy Court (Southern District of New York) declined to recognise the Cayman Islands provisional liquidations of two Bear Stearns' Hedge Funds as foreign main proceedings.

Although registered in the Cayman Islands, the two companies' Centres of Main Interest were in the USA so the provisional liquidations could not be main proceedings.

Neither could they be foreign non-main proceedings as neither company had an establishment in the Cayman Islands.

The decision specifically uses the UNCITRAL Model Law and the European Insolvency Regulation to interpret the provisions of Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code. It also disagrees with parts of the Sphinx decision. Eurofood is cited.

 

Eurofood - the ECJ decision

The famous decision on COMI (Centre of Main Interests) and the opening of main insolvency proceedings under the European Insolvency Regulation, which involved an Irish subsidiary of the Italian Parmalat group, is not the easiest to find quickly on the internet, so here's the link:

Eurofood IFSC Ltd, European Court of Justice Case C-341/04, Judgement of the Court (Grand Chamber), 2 May 2006

and here's the preceding Advocate General's Opinion:

Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs, 27 September 2005

For a selection of commentaries, try the following links:

Uncertainty in the UNCITRAL Model Law and the European Insolvency Regulation?

Although he describes Judge Drain's decision in In re SPhinX Ltd as pragmatic and commercial, Chris Mallon of Weil, Gotshal & Manges uses the case in an article entitled:

Bankruptcy Blunder

to illustrate his view that the uncertainty inherent in the Model Law makes credit-risk assessment very difficult and encourages forum shopping (and he expresses similar concern about the European Insolvency Regulation).

I think the benefits of legislation encouraging cooperation between insolvency regimes far outweigh the risks of forum shopping. Of course parties will seek to gain advantage from any perceived uncertainty and some courts may react less predictably than others, but the COMI concept and its interpretation is becoming familiar to most practitioners.

Certainly in Europe the debate has moved beyond COMI to considering how to manage cooperation between main and secondary proceedings, particularly in relation to creditors' rights to claim in either or both, or whether secondary proceedings are better avoided altogether by recognition of creditors' local rights in main proceedings.

Chapter 15, the UNCITRAL Model Law, COMI and non-main proceedings

In a review of the first year of enactment of Chapter 15 of the US Bankruptcy Code (which is based on the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency) Mark Douglas of Jones Day considers the concepts of main and non-main proceedings and of COMI (centre of main interests) by reference to In re SPhinX Ltd and In re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd under the title:

Chapter 15 Turns One: Ironing Out the Details.

I side with the view that the new legislation affords the courts the flexibility to protect stakeholders' interests and prevent forum shopping abuse.