This seventh edition of The Insolvency Review once again offers an in-depth review of market conditions and insolvency case developments in key countries. A debt of gratitude is owed to the outstanding professionals around the world who have dedicated their time and talents to this book. As always, their contributions reflect diverse viewpoints and approaches, which in turn reflect the diversity of their respective national commercial cultures and laws.

In a prior edition of this book, we examined the challenges faced by multinational enterprise groups attempting to restructure under diverse and potentially conflicting insolvency regimes. At that time, the European Parliament and Counsel had recently published the Recast Insolvency Regulation,1 which included provisions relating to cooperation and communication across group restructuring proceedings in multiple jurisdictions, and UNCITRAL's Working Group V was in the process of developing its Enterprise Group Insolvency: Draft Model Law (the EGI Model Law).2 This year's edition provides an occasion to revisit this topic in light of the Working Group's EGI Model Law and the EGI Model Law's Guide to Enactment (the Guide to Enactment).

The EGI Model Law is designed to provide states with a legislative framework to address the cross-border insolvency of enterprise groups, complementing the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the Model Law) and part three of the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law (the Legislative Guide, part three).3 What distinguishes the EGI Model Law from the Model Law, which concerns itself with multiple proceedings of a single debtor, is the focus on multiple insolvency proceedings relating to multiple related debtors.4

The EGI Model Law defines 'enterprise group' as two or more entities, regardless of legal form, that are engaged in economic activities and may be governed by insolvency law, that are interconnected by control or significant ownership.5 When members of an enterprise group are located in different jurisdictions, the EGI Model Law is intended to support cross-border cooperation and coordination with respect to their insolvency proceedings and establish new mechanisms that can be used to develop and implement a solution for the group (a group insolvency solution) through one (or potentially more) insolvency proceedings (each a planning proceeding) taking place in a state where a group member has its centre of main interests (COMI).6 A planning proceeding is a main proceeding commenced in respect of an enterprise group member provided (1) one or more other enterprise group members are participating in that main proceeding for the purpose of developing and implementing a group insolvency solution, (2) the enterprise group member subject to the main proceeding is likely to be a necessary and integral participant in that group insolvency solution, and (3) a group representative has been appointed. The group representative will be able to seek a wide range of relief in any group member's insolvency proceeding. Ultimately, a group insolvency solution can be a reorganisation, sale or liquidation of some or all of the assets and operations of one or more enterprise group members, with the goal of protecting, preserving, realising or enhancing the overall combined value of those enterprise group members.7 The EGI Model Law does not address the procedure for seeking approval of the group insolvency solution, leaving that to the law of the approving jurisdiction.8

The court overseeing the planning proceeding may grant certain types of relief if necessary to preserve the possibility of developing or implementing a group insolvency solution.9 These forms of relief include, among other things, staying execution against the assets of an enterprise group member, suspending the right to transfer, encumber, or otherwise dispose of any assets of an enterprise group member, staying the commencement or continuation of individual actions or individual proceedings concerning the assets, rights, obligations or liabilities of an enterprise group member, and approving arrangements concerning the funding of an enterprise group member and authorising the provision of finance under those funding arrangements.10 With respect to approval of post-filing funding arrangements, the Guide to Enactment notes that the court might take into consideration various criteria, including whether the funding arrangement is necessary for the continued operation or survival of the business of that enterprise group member or for the preservation or enhancement of the value of its estate, whether any harm to creditors of that enterprise group member will be offset by the benefit to be derived from continuing that funding arrangement, whether the funding arrangement safeguards the development of a group insolvency solution, and whether the interests of local creditors are protected.11

Moreover, the EGI Model Law also seeks to minimise the need for commencement of non-main proceedings in a second state in which an enterprise group member has an establishment and facilitates the centralised treatment of claims in an enterprise group insolvency by including a mechanism under which such claims can be addressed.12

It remains to be seen how swiftly and extensively the EGI Model Law will be incorporated into national laws. There is reason to believe, however, that some of the 45 jurisdictions that have adopted the existing Model Law may act relatively quickly, given the need for an enterprise group solution and the public nature of Working Group V's work.

Recent experiences in high-profile enterprise group restructurings further underscore the benefits promised by this new regime. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York quoted from a working draft of the EGI Model Law in its opinion denying recognition of the Dutch insolvency proceeding of Oi Brasil Holdings Coöperatief UA (Coop).13 There, the Dutch trustee of Coop sought such recognition notwithstanding that:

  1. the Oi Group was a Brazilian enterprise that maintained nearly all its operations, management, principal executive offices, customers, assets and employees in Brazil;
  2. many of the Oi debtors, including Coop, were already subject to restructuring proceedings in Brazil (recuperação judicial (RJ));
  3. an RJ had previously been recognised by the US Bankruptcy Court as foreign main proceedings;
  4. Coop was merely a special purpose vehicle (SPV) used to finance the Oi Group as a whole; and
  5. Brazil was the preferred venue of the Oi Group.

The Coop dispute was highly contentious and costly, but had the EGI Model Law existed, the effects of the dispute might have been mitigated. The group representative of a hypothetical Brazilian planning proceeding for the Oi Group could have, among other things, petitioned the Dutch court for (1) recognition of the planning proceeding and (2) relief to support the development and implementation of an insolvency solution for the Oi Group as a whole. The existence and recognition of a planning proceeding might have reduced the likelihood of the contested recognition hearing in the United States. The same may be true for the case of OAS SA and its debtor affiliates, which also involved a COMI determination regarding a European SPV that served as a financing vehicle for a Brazilian enterprise.14

As I do each year, I want to thank each of the contributors to this book for their efforts to make The Insolvency Review a valuable resource. As each of our authors knows, this book is a significant undertaking because of the current coverage of developments we seek to provide. As in previous years, my hope is that this year's volume will help all of us, authors and readers alike, to reflect on the larger picture, keeping our eye on likely, as well as necessary, developments, on both the near and distant horizons.

Donald S Bernstein
Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
New York
September 2019


Footnotes

1 Regulation (EU) No. 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast), 2015 O.J. (L 141)  https://eur-lex.europa.edu/eli/reg/2015/848/oj>.

2 See UNCITRAL, Report of Working Group V (Insolvency Law) on the Work of its Forty-Fifth Session (New York, 21 to 25 April 2014), U.N. Doc. A/CN.9/803 (6 May 2014)  https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/803>.

3 UNCITRAL, Enterprise Group Insolvency: Guide to Enactment, Working Group V (28 to 31 May 2019) https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.165>.

4 ibid., at I.A.3.

5 EGI Model Law, at Article 2.

6 UNCITRAL, Enterprise Group Insolvency: Guide to Enactment, Working Group V (28 to 31 May 2019)  https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.165>.

7 ibid., at Article 2(f).

8 ibid., at Article 26.

9 ibid., at Article 19.

10 ibid., at Article 20.

11 UNCITRAL, Enterprise Group Insolvency: Guide to Enactment, Working Group V (28 to 31 May 2019)  https://undocs.org/en/A/CN.9/WG.V/WP.165>.

12 ibid.

13 In re Oi Brasil Holdings Coöperatief U.A., 578 B.R. 169, 243 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017) (noting that 'the promotion of cooperation between courts and other competent authorities among States involved in cases of cross-border insolvency affecting members of an enterprise group' is a key objective of both the Enterprise Group Insolvency Model Law and reflects current trends in international insolvency law).

14 In re OAS S.A., 533 B.R. 83 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015).