Rubin and New Cap
In the final analysis, it is considered that these cases should not be a fundamental problem for IP’s as the issues highlighted can be avoided. Indeed, the recent case of “Bilta (UK) Limited v Nazir” [2012] shows this issue in stark contrast where the High Court was willing to apply the scope of section 213 in an extra-territorial context.
What is, however, probably more relevant in the international context, is the proposed amendments to the Regulation. Amongst these are:-
- To include “hybrid” (debtor in possession e.g. CVA) and “pre-Insolvency” schemes (restructuring e.g. Schemes of Arrangement) within the scope of the Regulation.
- Foreign Creditors are given the right to challenge a decision regarding a company’s COMI.
- Secondary proceedings will no longer have to be winding up proceedings, and the Court will be obliged to consider the views of the office – holder in the main proceedings.
- There will be a greater obligation on office-holders to consult and coordinate in cases involving the Insolvency of a group of companies in different jurisdictions.
- There is to be an internet-based register available to the public regarding insolvencies in each EU Jurisdiction, probably via the European e-Justice Portal (ec.europa.eu.civiljustice)
On 15th April 2013 the UK announced its intention to opt-in to the proposed amendments albeit that it is understood that Schemes of Arrangement will be excluded from the amendments to the Regulation.
For further information, please contact Chris Millar either by telephone on 01306 502225 or by email c.millar@downslaw.co.uk
