What is an insolvency proceeding? Gategroup lands in a gated community

Abstract

AbstractMany English (and other) restructuring lawyers consider that the scheme of arrangement cannot properly be characterized as an insolvency proceeding for the purposes of certain international instruments for (amongst other things) the allocation of jurisdiction and/or the recognition of proceedings, judgments, and/or orders. This article shows that this view is mistaken. The article examines insolvency as a scalar attribute and a vague concept. It draws out the implications of treating insolvency law functionally as that part of law which responds to the circumstances peculiar to a debtor's insolvency. It considers the nature of insolvency, “pre‐insolvency”, “preventive'”, restructuring, liquidation, and “pre‐pack” proceedings. It shows that proceedings operating under insolvency law in relation to insolvent debtors often operate in identical or materially similar ways in relation to solvent debtors. This is as true of winding‐up, administration, and company voluntary arrangement proceedings under English law as of the scheme of arrangement. This has important implications for the characterization of a proceeding as an insolvency proceeding for relevant purposes. The article outlines the development of the concordat in several civil law jurisdictions, starting with its roots in Justinian's Digest. It traces the development of the composition in England, starting with its status as a voluntary process incapable of binding dissentients, taking in the “protections” granted by the Privy Council and the “bills of conformity” issued by the Court of Chancery, and then considering statutory compositions. It shows how the statutory composition travelled from natural person insolvency law to corporate insolvency law. The artic draws on this analysis and the official reports on key European instruments allocating international jurisdiction in insolvency and “civil and commercial” matters to characterise the scheme of arrangement. The article also assesses the most detailed critique yet of the gategroup judgment of the High Court of England and Wales, which characterized the restructuring plan proceeding as an insolvency proceeding for certain jurisdictional purposes. The critique of this judgment usefully exposes to the sunlight of public scrutiny — at length and independently of the exigencies of any particular litigation — the types of arguments which have been used to resist the conclusion that the scheme is (quite plainly) a judicial composition which constitutes an insolvency proceeding for relevant purposes when deployed in relation to insolvent companies. The article shows that these arguments are unpersuasive.