Posts Tagged lex concursus
CeDe Group v KAN. Bobek AG on the intricate applicable law provisions of the Insolvency Regulation (here: concerning set-off for assigned claims).
Update 22 November 2019 the CJEU yesterday confirmed the AG’s Opinion.
Bobek AG opined end of May in C-198/18 CeDe Group v KAN. I am posting a touch late for well, readers will know I have not been fiddling my thumbs. The Opinion concerns the lex causae for set-off in accordance with the (2000) Insolvency Regulation – provisions for which have not materially changed in the current version of the EIR (Regulation 2015/848). At stake are Articles 4 cq 6 and 7 cq 9 in the two versions of the Insolvency Regulation.
The liquidator of PPUB Janson sp.j. (‘PPUB’), a Polish company the subject of insolvency proceedings in Poland, lodged before the Swedish courts an application against CeDe Group AB (‘CeDe’), a Swedish company, claiming payment for goods delivered under a pre-existing contract between PPUB and CeDe, which is governed by Swedish law. In the course of those proceedings, CeDe claimed a set-off in respect of a larger debt owed to it by PPUB. The liquidator had previously refused that set-off within the framework of the Polish insolvency proceedings. During the course of the procedure before the Swedish courts, PPUB’s liquidator assigned the claim against CeDe to another company, KAN sp. z o.o. (‘KAN’), which subsequently became insolvent. However, KAN’s liquidator refused to take over the claim at issue, with the result that KAN (in insolvency) is now party to the litigation
The Supreme Court, Sweden doubts the law applicable to such a set-off claim. Before the referring court, KAN claimed that the set-off claim should be heard under Polish law, whereas CeDe submitted that that issue should be examined under Swedish law. Both of course reverse-engineered their arguments to support opposing views.
The Advocate General in trademark lucid style navigates the facts and issues (not helped by the little detail seemingly given by the referring court). Complication is of course that the general Gleichlauf rule of the EIR is repeatedly tempered by ad hoc regimes for specific claims or claimants.
The AG advises on the main question (should the CJEU follow then his reply to the other questions becomes redundant), at 36, that ‘that Article 4(2) of the Insolvency Regulation makes reference to the conditions for invoking set-offs and to the effects of insolvency on current contracts cannot entail, in my view, that any claim relating to a contract where a party to that contract is subject to insolvency proceedings (and/or where a set‑off is invoked against that claimant) falls automatically within the concept of ‘insolvency proceedings and their effects’ for the purposes of determining which provision governs the applicable law. The mere fact that it is the liquidator who has lodged such an action does not, in my view, change that conclusion.. At 37 he adds powerful argument for same: ‘A case like the present one neatly demonstrates why any other conclusion would lead to unpredictable, or even bizarre, results. The law governing the contractual claim would not only differ from the one that the parties agreed on, but it would also change repeatedly, due to subsequent assignments and/or the assignees themselves eventually becoming subject to insolvency proceedings. All such changes to the applicable law would be based on events not only post-dating the conclusion of the contract and the choice of applicable law, but also largely unconnected to the contract. In addition, all this could be happening while proceedings are pending before the same court.’
Like the Commission, for the final, very interesting question [that question from the referring court boils down to the issue of whether the ‘non-permissibility’ of set-offs in the lex concursus under Article 4 EIR is to be addressed in concrete or abstract terms in order to trigger the exception laid down in Article 6(1)] Bobek AK focuses on the Regulation’s stated aim (recital 26 of the 2000 EIR; recital 70 in the 2015 EIR) of having the set-off regime fulfill its role as a guarantee for international commercial transactions: at 74: ‘adopting an approach focused on the concrete outcomes produced by the respective applicable laws in conflict in a given case, the test to be applied must zero in on the specific solution that would be arrived at by the law applicable to the main claim’.
An Opinion very much soaked in commercial reality.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.7.
Court confirms: tortious suit brought by liquidator (‘Peeters /Gatzen’) is covered by Brussels I Recast.
I am hoping to catch-up with my blog backlog this week, watch this space. I’ll kick off with the Court of Justice last week confirming in C–535/17 NK v BNP Paribas Fortis that the Peeters /Gatzen suit is covered by Brussels I Recast. Citing similar reasons as Bobek AG (whose Opinion I reviewed here), the Court at 34 concludes that the ‘action is based on the ordinary rules of civil and commercial law and not on the derogating rules specific to insolvency proceedings.’
This reply cancelled out the need for consideration of many of the issues which the AG did discuss – those will have to wait for later cases.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.4.1, Heading 5.7.
Vis (non) attractiva concursus. Bobek AG suggests tortious suit brought by liquidator (‘Peeters /Gatzen’) is covered by Brussels I Recast.
I earlier posted a guest blog on the qualification of the Dutch Peeters /Gatzen suit, a damages claim based on tort, brought by a liquidator against a third party having acted wrongfully towards the creditors. Bobek AG opined two weeks back in C-535/17 NK (insolvency practitioner for a baillif practice) v BNP Paribas Fortis.
His Opinion is of relevance not just for the consideration of jurisdiction, but perhaps even more so (for less litigated so far) for the analysis of applicable law.
Roel Verheyden has commented on the Opinion in Dutch here, and Sandrine Piet had earlier contextualised the issues (also in Dutch) here. She clarifies that the suit was introduced by the Dutch Supreme Court in 1983, allowing the insolvency practitioner (as EU insolvency law now calls them) to claim in tort against third parties whose actions have diminished the collective rights of the creditors, even if the insolvency person or company at issue was not entitled to such suit. The Advocate General himself, in his trademark lucid style, summarises the suit excellently.
Importantly, the Peeters /Gatzen is not a classic pauliana (avoidance) suit: Bobek AG at 16: ‘The power of the liquidator to bring a Peeters-Gatzen action is not limited to cases where the third party belongs to the circle of persons who, based on a Paulian (bankruptcy) claim .. would be liable for involvement in allegedly detrimental acts. The liquidator’s competence relates more generally to the damage caused to the general body of creditors by the wrongful act of a third party involved in causing that damage. The third party need not have caused the damage or have profited from it: it is sufficient that that third party could have prevented the damage but cooperated instead.’
In the case at issue, the third party is BNP Paribas Fortis, who had allowed the sole director of the company to withdraw large amounts of cash from the company’s account.
Firstly, on the jurisdictional issue, Nickel /Goeldner and Nortel had intervened after the interim judgments of the Dutch courts, creating doubt in their minds as to the correct delineation between the Insolvency and Brussels I Recast Regulation. The Advocate-General’s approach in my view is the correct one, and I refer to his Opinion for the solid arguments he deploys. In essence, the DNA of the suit are the ordinary rules of civil law (re: tort). That it be introduced by the insolvency practitioner (here, the liquidator) and that it is the case-law on liquidation proceedings which has granted that right to the liquidator, is not materially relevant. Note that the AG correctly adds in footnote 40 that even if the suit is not subject to the Insolvency Regulation, that Regulation does not disappear from the litigation. In particular, given that liquidation proceedings are underway, the lex concursus determines the ius agendi of the liquidator to bring the suit in tort, in another Member State (Belgium, on the basis of Article 7(2) or 4 Brussels I Recast).
Now, for applicable law, the AG first of all completes the analysis on the basis of the Insolvency Regulation, in the unlikely event the CJEU were not to follow him on the jurisdictional issue. Here (para 85 ff) the referring court wishes to know whether, if the Peeters-Gatzen action is covered by the Insolvency Regulation, such a claim would be governed, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that Regulation, by the law of the Member State where the insolvency proceedings were opened as regards both the power of the liquidator to bring that claim and the substantive law applicable to that claim. This question seeks to determine whether it is possible to follow the approach of the second-instance court in the main proceedings, and separate the law governing the powers of the liquidator (ius agendi) from the law applicable to the merits of the claim. The powers of the liquidator would then be governed by the lex fori concursus (Dutch law, per Article 4(2)(c) Insolvency Regulation). That article states that ‘the law of the State of the opening of proceedings … shall determine in particular … the respective powers of the debtor and the liquidator’. However, the merits of the claim would then be governed by the law applicable by virtue of the general (non-insolvency) conflict of law rules. In the present case that would lead to application of residual Dutch conflict of law rules, because the Rome II Regulation does not apply ratione temporis as the AG further explains. These rules lead to Belgian law being the lex causae.
Within the assumption of the Insolvency Regulation determining jurisdiction (for see footnote 40 as reported above, re ius agendi) the AG emphasises the Regulation’s goal of Gleichlauf: at 89: If the Peeters-Gatzen action were covered by the Insolvency Regulation, all its elements would be governed exclusively by the conflict of law rules of that regulation.
(Current) Article 16’s exception such as in Nike and Lutz does not come into play for as Bobek AG notes at 94, ‘It is difficult to see how the Peeters-Gatzen action at issue in the main proceedings could be qualified as a rule ‘relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts detrimental to all the creditors’, in the sense of Article 4(2)(m) [old, GAVC] of the Insolvency Regulation. The purpose of such an action is not a declaration of the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of an act of the third party, but the recovery of damages based on the wrongful behaviour of that third party towards the creditors. Therefore, as Article 4(2)(m) [old, GAVC] of the regulation would not apply in the main proceedings, the exception in Article 13 [old, GAVC] could not apply either.’
The AG finally discusses the referring court’s question whether if the Peeters-Gatzen action is exclusively subject to the lex fori concursus, it would be possible to take into account, whether directly or at least by analogy, and on the basis of Article 17 Rome II read in conjunction with Article 13 (now 16) of the Insolvency Regulation, the security regulations and codes of conduct applicable at the place of the alleged wrongful act (that is to say, in Belgium), such as financial rules of conduct for banks. Article 17 Rome II reads ‘In assessing the conduct of the person claimed to be liable, account shall be taken, as a matter of fact and in so far as is appropriate, of the rules of safety and conduct which were in force at the place and time of the event giving rise to the liability.‘
I have argued before that Article 17 Rome II does not have the rather extensive impact which some attribute to it. The AG, after signalling that the Article is yet to be applied by the CJEU, notes that Rome II does not apply here ratione temporis. He then concludes with an aside (it is not articulated as a proper argument – which is just as well for it is circular I suppose): at 104: ‘the more pertinent question is… whether it is really necessary to have recourse to a cumbersome legal construction, in this case the application of rules by analogy, outside of their material and temporal scope, in order to reach a solution (the application of Belgian law) which solves a problem (the applicability of Netherlands law by virtue of the Insolvency Regulation) that should not have been created in the first place (since the Peeters-Gatzen claim at hand should fall within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation). In any event, I am of the view, also in this regard, that these questions by the referring court rather confirm that there is no close connection between that action and the insolvency proceedings.’
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.4.1, Heading 5.7.
Not quite HoHoHo (yet): OOO PROMNEFTSTROY v Yukos: Insolvency and conflict of laws in the Dutch Supreme Court.
Granted, the (bad) pun in the title would have worked better around the end of year, which is when I had originally planned this posting, before I got sidetracked. Bob Wessels has excellent overview here (including admirably swift and exact translation of core parts of the judgment). OOO PROMNEFTSTROY v Yukos at the Dutch Supreme Court is but one instalment in running litigation literally taking place across the globe.
Of particular interest to the blog is the court’s finding (at 3.4.2) that the existence of a corporation is subject to the lex incorporationis not, as the Court of Appeal had held, the lex concursus in the event of insolvency. The EU’s Insolvency Regulation does not apply for COMI is not within the EU. The Insolvency Regulation does not in so many words say the same as the Dutch Supreme Court however it is likely that under the EIR, too, this issue falls under lex societatis /lex incorporationis (see e.g. Miguel Virgos & Francisco Garcimartin, The European Insolvency Regulation: Law and Practice, Kluwer, 2004, p.82 (par 123, f: dissolution of the company).
One can imagine of course the one or two complications arising out of the seizure of assets of a company which no longer exists.
European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.7
Postscript for an example of where Article 4(2)m, lex fori concursus for rules relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts detrimental to all the creditors, applies without correction, see C-594/14 Kornhaas.
In my posting on Lutz I flagged the increasing relevance of Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation. This Article neutralises the lex concursus in favour of the lex causae governing the act between a person (often a company) benefiting from an act detrimental to all the creditors, and the insolvent company. Classic example is a payment made by the insolvent company to one particular creditor. Evidently this is detrimental to the other creditors, who are confronted with reduced means against which they can exercise their rights. Article 13 reads
Detrimental acts. Article 4(2)(m) shall not apply where the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors provides proof that: – the said act is subject to the law of a Member State other than that of the State of the opening of proceedings, and – that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case.
In the case at issue, C-310/14, Nike (incorporated in The Netherlands) had a franchise agreement with Sportland Oy, a Finnish company. This agreement is governed by Dutch law (through choice of law). Sportland paid for a number of Nike deliveries. Payments went ahead a few months before and after the opening of the insolvency proceedings. Sportland’s liquidator attempts to have the payments annulled, and to have Nike reimburse.
Under Finnish law, para 10 of the Law on recovery of assets provides that the payment of a debt within three months of the prescribed date may be challenged if it is paid with an unusual means of payment, is paid prematurely, or in an amount which, in view of the amount of the debtor’s estate, may be regarded as significant. Under Netherlands law, according to Article 47 of the Law on insolvency (Faillissementswet), the payment of an outstanding debt may be challenged only if it is proven that when the recipient received the payment he was aware that the application for insolvency proceedings had already been lodged or that the payment was agreed between the creditor and the debtor in order to give priority to that creditor to the detriment of the other creditors.
Nike first of all argued, unsuccessfully in the Finnish courts, that the payment was not ‘unusual’. The Finnish courts essentially held that under relevant Finnish law, the payment was unusual among others because the amount paid was quite high in relation to the overall assets of the company. Nike argues in subsidiary order that Dutch law, the lex causae of the franchise agreement, should be applied. Attention then focussed (and the CJEU held on) the burden of proof under Article 13, as well as the exact meaning of ‘that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case.‘
Firstly, the Finnish version of the Regulation seemingly does not include wording identical or similar to ‘in the relevant case‘ (Article 13 in fine). Insisting on a restrictive interpretation of Article 13, which it had also held in Lutz, the CJEU held that all the circumstances of the cases need to be taken into account. The person profiting from the action cannot solely rely ‘in a purely abstract manner, on the unchallengeable character of the act at issue on the basis of a provision of the lex causae‘ (at 21).
Related to this issue the referring court had actually quoted the Virgos Schmit report, which reads in relevant part (at 137) ‘By “any means” it is understood that the act must not be capable of being challenged using either rules on insolvency or general rules of the national law applicable to the act’. This interpretation evidently reduces the comfort zone for the party who benefitted from the act. It widens the search area, so to speak. It was suggested, for instance, that Dutch law in general includes a prohibition of abuse of rights, which is wider than the limited circumstances of the Faillissementswet, referred to above.
The CJEU surprisingly does not quote the report however it does come to a similar conclusion: at 36: ‘the expression ‘does not allow any means of challenging that act …’ applies, in addition to the insolvency rules of the lex causae, to the general provisions and principles of that law, taken as a whole.’
Attention then shifted to the burden of proof: which party is required to plead that the circumstances for application of a provision of the lex causae leading to voidness, voidability or unenforceability of the act, do not exist? The CJEU held on the basis of Article 13’s wording and overall objectives that it is for the defendant in an action relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of an act to provide proof, on the basis of the lex causae, that the act cannot be challenged. Tthe defendant has to prove both the facts from which the conclusion can be drawn that the act is unchallengeable and the absence of any evidence that would militate against that conclusion (at 25).
However, (at 27) ‘although Article 13 of the regulation expressly governs where the burden of proof lies, it does not contain any provisions on more specific procedural aspects. For instance, that article does not set out, inter alia, the ways in which evidence is to be elicited, what evidence is to be admissible before the appropriate national court, or the principles governing that court’s assessment of the probative value of the evidence adduced before it.‘
‘(T)he issue of determining the criteria for ascertaining whether the applicant has in fact proven that the act can be challenged falls within the procedural autonomy of the relevant Member State, regard being had to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.’ (at 44)
The Court therefore once again bumps into the limits of autonomous interpretation. How ad hoc, concrete (as opposed to ‘in the abstract’: see the CJEU’s words, above) the defendant has to be in providing proof (and foreign expert testimony with it), may differ greatly in the various Member States. Watch this space for more judicial review of Article 13.
Postscript 7 December 2015: Bob Wessels has annotated the case here.
Postscript for an example of where Article 4(2)m, lex fori concursus for rules relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts detrimental to all the creditors, applies without correction, see C-594/14 Kornhaas.
This post has been some time in the making, notwithstanding my promise to have it up soon. Let’s just say I got distracted.
The wide interest in Lutz, Case C-557/13, illustrates the increasing relevance of the actio pauliana in protecting creditors from their debtor’s insolvency. The core underlying issue for Lutz is that, in the absence of considerable capital in companies (arguably a direct result indeed of the regulatory competition in Member States’ corporate law following the ECJ’s case-law on freedom of establishment), civil law mechanisms have become more relevant than classic recourse to companies’ liability, relying on their capital.
If one relies on more classic modes of securitisation, one may want to have more predictability in what law will apply to those securitised agreements. That is where the Insolvency Regulation comes in, in providing for a mechanism which allows parties to choose applicable law for the relevant agreements.
Article 4(2)m of the Insolvency Regulation (in the new Regulation this is Article 7(m) – unchanged) makes the lex concursus applicable in principle: lex concursus applies to ‘(m) the rules relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of legal acts detrimental to all the creditors.’ However Article 13 (16 new – unchanged) insulates a set of agreements from the pauliana: ‘Article 4(2)(m) shall not apply where the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors provides proof that: – the said act is subject to the law of a Member State other than that of the State of the opening of proceedings, and – that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case.’
The crucial consideration in Lutz was whether the absence of means of challenge in the lex causae, relates to substantive law only, or also to procedural law. Randi summarise the time-line and relevant distinction in German and Austrian law as follows:
- “17 Mar 2008-Austrian court issues an enforceable payment order in favour of Mr Lutz against the debtor company
- 18 April 2008-debtor files application for German insolvency proceedings
- 20 May 2008-attachment of three Austrian bank accounts of the company
- 4 August 2008-German insolvency proceedings opened (as main proceedings) in respect of the company
- 17 Mar 2009-Austrian bank pays monies to Mr Lutz
Under German law, any enforcement of security over the debtor’s assets during the month preceding the lodging of the application to open proceedings is legally invalid once proceedings are opened. Under Austrian law, an action to set aside a transaction must be brought within one year after the opening of proceedings, failing which it becomes time-barred. By contrast, the limitation period under German law is three years. Although the attachment order was granted before the application to open main proceedings was filed, the actual attachment itself took place after that filing and the subsequent payment of monies by the bank took place after main proceedings were opened in Germany. Mr Lutz argued that art 13 applied and that the payment could no longer be challenged by the German liquidator under Austrian law as the one-year limitation period had expired.”
(Randi also have good review of the questions in Lutz relating to rights in rem and Article 5, triggered in the case at issue by the attachments of bank accounts).
Essentially, the Court expresses sympathy for the cover of procedural limits to fighting detrimental acts to be determined by the lex causae. (It dismissed any relevance of Article 12(1)d of Rome I Regulation, which provides that prescription and limitation of actions are governed by ‘the law applicable to a contract’: for the Insolvency Regulation is most definitely lex specialis). However leaving the matter up to the lex causae would cause differentiated application of the Insolvency Regulation across the Member States.
Consequently the ECJ opts for autonomous interpretation, ruling (at 49) that Article 13 of Regulation No 1346/2000 must be interpreted as meaning that the defence which it establishes also applies to limitation periods or other time-bars relating to actions to set aside transactions under the lex causae.’
The ECJ’s judgment essentially confirms the EFTA Court’s views on the similar proviso in Directive 2001/24 on the winding-up of credit institutions (Lbi hf v Merrill Lynch). A pity the ECJ did not refer to that finding. Geert.
You name it! Dutch court adds to the criteria relevant in (not) rebutting COMI presumption for companies
Thank you Arie van Hoe for alerting me to this in some respect amusing judgment by the court at The Hague. Amusing, in that the court adds a curious consideration to the criteria for third parties’ perception of COMI.
Central Eastern European Real Estate Shareholdings BV is incorporated in The Netherlands. Per Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, The Netherlands is therefore presumed to be the Centre of Main Interests – COMI of the company. This presumption can be rebutted using the definition of COMI included in recital 13: COMI is the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is therefore ascertainable by third parties. The ECJ has repeatedly emphasised the combination of both: administration of the interests elsewhere, and this as such being recognisable to third parties.
CEE itself suggests Romania as COMI. The court at The Hague correctly emphasises both elements of recital 13, paying particular attention to third party ascertainability. Consultation of the commercial register, the Court flags, reveals clearly to third parties that the company is being managed from the Netherlands, by Dutch directors. It is here that the Court adds the reference to the commercial register revealing the ‘typically Dutch names’ of the directors. That is amusing and was bound to attract attention – although to be fair it is not the core reasoning of the court. Of some relevance was the fact that the directors apparently, as was revealed at the hearing, regularly consult, in The Netherlands, with Netherlands based consultants.
It is of course difficult to read the entire mind of the court just from the succinctly written judgment, however what seemed to be crucial was the lack of convincing elements, provided by the company, that to third parties Romania clearly was the place of administration of the company’s interests. Indeed the judgment reveals no such factors at all. Aforementioned elements therefore acted in support of the presumption.
Reference to the directors’ names opens up an interesting prospect: that of first name shopping (or indeed change of name by deed poll) to impact on COMI. (Please just put that down as a silly suggestion rather than sound advice. For, again, the court itself also just made the comment in support ex multi).
Propertize: Should creditors’ domicile and mutual consent on COMI be relevant for insolvency Regulation?
In Propertize, (held 10 April 2014; delayed reporting for exam reasons) the court at ‘s-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) held that Propertise BV has COMI in The Netherlands (and the presumption in favour of COMI being the place of corporate domicile therefore not dismissed), paying particular attention to the fact that (1) during argument at court both parties in the meantime had agreed that COMI was in The Netherlands, and (2) that the main creditors were based in The Netherlands.
Prof Wessels was right to be pleased to be quoted in the judgment – even if as he also rightfully points out, the court in fact only refers to his Handbook to cite relevant case-law and not to apply the COMI test properly (as prof Wessels’ book does): recital 13 of the Insolvency Regulation suggests COMI as being the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his interests on a regular basis and is therefore ascertainable by third parties. The ECJ has repeatedly emphasised the combination of both: administration of the interests elsewhere, and this as such being recognisable to third parties (e.g. at 49 in Interedil). Neither location of the creditors nor agreement between creditors on the debtors’ COMI have any relevance.
Textbook inadequate application of COMI: hence very appropriate for an exam question. Geert.
The Irish High Court in Harley Medical Group: Textbook application of COMI following PIP implants liability
In Harley Medical Group, the Irish High Court has made a textbook application of the determination of jurisdiction under the EU’s Insolvency Regulation. The Court held in May, the case has only now come to my attention.
Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd has its registered office in the British Virgin Islands. It had registered in the Companies Registration Office (CRO) in Ireland as an external company with a branch established in the State pursuant to the European Communities (Branch Disclosure) Regulations 1993. The sole shareholder sought winding up in Ireland. Liabilities arose from claims against Harley by 158 former patients in respect of cosmetic treatment they received. Many of those claims arise from breast implant operations using breast implants from PIP, a French registered company. The Company was informed by its insurers that its insurance cover does not extend to product liability claims for products sourced from a third party.
The patients opposed jurisdiction, seeking to have the case heard in the UK instead: lex concursus would then have been English law, which allegedly would have been more favourable on account of the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010: this would allegedly give the claimants better rights against the insurer. As the High Court correctly held, however,
‘The perceived advantage to the Opposing Creditors of this Court declining jurisdiction to wind up the Company is articulated as follows in [ ] ’s second affidavit, where it is averred that –
“. . . the creditors believe their rights under UK legislation with regard to any relevant policies of insurance indemnifying or intended to indemnify the Company against claims such as those of the creditors will be stronger than under Irish law.”
The Court was referred to a UK statute entitled Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010. That contention is immaterial to the Court’s function on this application and it would be inappropriate for the Court to express any view on it. (at 37)
The High Court swiftly rejected the notion that the Regulation does not apply because of the non-EU incorporation of the company: from the moment the company’s COMI – Centre of Main Interest is in the EU, the Regulation does apply. Neither does it matter that the company is part of a group of undertakings, and that a company within the group with which it was associated had been placed in administration in the UK: COMI, per Eurofood (notably, upon reference by the Irish Supreme Court), needs to be individually determined per corporation.
The Court subsequently reviewed the rebuttable presumption of COMI as being the place of incorporation (here: BVI). Per Interedil, this requires the court seized to review whether the Company’s actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests is located in its territory, ! in a manner that is ascertainable by third parties. Both conditions were fulfilled:
On the condition of ‘actual centre of management and supervision and of the management of its interests’ the High Court accepted the following indices:
- – The Company has never traded in any jurisdiction other than Ireland.
- – all surgical treatments had been carried out in Ireland, the operations having been performed by surgeons registered with the Irish Medical Council;
- – the Company was registered as a branch in Ireland and subsequently filed all of the statutory returns as was required by law.
- – All employees of the Company are located in Ireland.
- – The Company’s only place of business is at Dublin.
- – The Company’s address for correspondence has at all times been located in Ireland.
- – The Company is registered with the Irish Revenue Commissioners for VAT, and relevant national insurance payments.
- – The Company is not tax resident in any other jurisdiction.
- – The Company does not operate any bank account in any other jurisdiction other than Ireland;
- – The Company board meetings typically took place in Guernsey. However, in the last fourteen months, they have taken place either in London or in Dublin.
On the matter of ascertainability by third parties, that all of the Company’s activities have been conducted in Ireland since 1999 and that the administration of its interests has been continuously conducted in Ireland, has been readily ascertainable by third parties by conducting a search in the CRO and an inspection of the documents filed by the Company in the CRO in accordance with the law of Ireland.
Top marks, I’ld say.
In Bank Handlowy, The ECJ has arguably done the most it can for restructuring operations, within the constraints of the current Insolvency Regulation. The review of the Insolvency Regulation is in full swing, and the position of restructuring proceedings is but one of the many interesting challenges. From the very start of the negotiation of the Regulation (and its antecedents), the position of restructuring was discussed. Limiting the Regulation to winding-up proceedings would have had the distinct advantage of limiting the spread of opened procedures, ditto for applicable laws. It would however have cut out restructuring entirely from the Regulation, which would have been unacceptable given its large impact in practice. A ‘compromise’ was found in only allowing the Member State of the debtor’s COMI (Centre of Main Interests) to open main proceedings (which could be either restructuring or winding-up), and to limit proceedings in other Member States to winding-up proceedings vis-a-vis local assets.
The compromise works mathematically only, however: it may limit the amount of proceedings; it does nothing to address the complex overlap.
The EC has summarised the facts in Bank Handlowy as follows: Christianapol is a Polish company specialised in the production of furniture. It is part of the Cauval Industries Group with its head office in France to which it supplies all its production. The group suffered from the recession and went into financial difficulties. In an attempt to rescue the group, several members, including Christianapol, filed for sauvegarde proceedings in France. These proceedings aim at permitting solvent companies to restructure themselves under court protection at a pre-insolvency stage. They are covered by the Regulation although concerns have been raised as to whether they comply with the definition One of the Polish creditors of Christianapol, Bank Handlowy, applied for secondary proceedings in Poland where the company’s furniture factory was located. The winding-up of the factory would have prevented the successful implementation of the restructuring plan elaborated in the French sauvegarde proceedings. This problem prompted the Polish court to seek a preliminary ruling from the CJEU.
Of note is that all of Christianopol’s assets are located in Poland; this does not prevent COMI from being in France.
The ECJ first of all confirms that the Member States master the inclusion, or not, of proceedings in the Regulation: when a procedure is included in the Annex, upon proposal by the Member State, the EU is not to second-guess whether these are ‘true’ insolvency proceedings. ‘Insolvency’ may be a substantial condition for the Regulation to apply, however it is not defined by it. Further, even if the main proceedings have a protective purpose (here: a procedure de ‘sauvegarde’), that in itself does not prevent the opening- of secondary, necessarily winding-up proceedings in another Member State. This may evidently sink the ‘restructuring’ operation in the Member State of COMI. However – and this is where the Court pushes the boat out – the ECJ flags the various options available to the liquidator to influence the secondary procedure: at para 61 ff:
‘The liquidator in the main proceedings thus has certain prerogatives at his disposal which allow him to influence the secondary proceedings in such a way that the protective purpose of the main proceedings is not jeopardised. Under Article 33(1) of the Regulation, he may request an order for stay of the process of liquidation for up to three months, which may be continued or renewed for similar periods. Under Article 34(1) of the same regulation, the liquidator in the main proceedings may propose closing the secondary proceedings with a rescue plan, a composition or a comparable measure. Article 34(3) provides that, during the stay of the process of liquidation under Article 33(1) of the Regulation, only the liquidator in the main proceedings or the debtor, with the liquidator’s consent, may propose such measures. The principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) EU requires the court having jurisdiction to open secondary proceedings, in applying those provisions, to have regard to the objectives of the main proceedings and to take account of the scheme of the Regulation, which (…) aims to ensure efficient and effective cross-border insolvency proceedings through mandatory coordination of the main and secondary proceedings guaranteeing the priority of the main proceedings.’
Any further than this and the Court would effectively be re-writing the Regulation. One of the main issues under consideration in the Insolvency package will be to what extent the EU wants to and can harmonise the lex concursus in itself.