Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
When do English courts have discretion to annul an order in international bankruptcy cases? Michael Swainston QC at Brick Court Chambers examines the decision in JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman and others, a leading judgment on the accessibility of English bankruptcy to foreign debtors.
JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman and others  EWHC 396 (Ch),  All ER (D) 288 (Feb)
The Chancery Division considered an appeal against a decision of the Chief Registrar, in which he declined to annul a bankruptcy order made against K, a Russian businessman. The court held that, while the Chief Registrar had erred in principle in his approach to his jurisdiction to annul the bankruptcy order, the court had not had a discretion to annul the order, and the appeal would be dismissed.
Mr Vladimir Kekhman has been a very successful entrepreneur in Russia, building a huge fruit importation business under JFC Group, a BVI company, with subsidiaries in Russia, the BVI, Cyprus, Luxembourg, Panama, Costa Rica and Ecuador. On his case, he pulled back from this business when he began his subsequent career as head of the Mikhailovsky Theatre in St Petersburg, and left the running of it to his partners, Mr Afanasiev and Mrs Zakharova.
Mr Kekhman subsequently enjoyed great success in the running of the Mikhailovsky which has been restored to the first rank of international arts venues.
Meanwhile, however, the fruit business failed. JFC Russia is subject to a Russian bankruptcy process and Mr Kekhman has been exposed to multiple liabilities, including substantial English law liabilities, as a guarantor of loans to JFC Group companies.
Russian law does not have a personal bankruptcy regime for individuals who are not registered entrepreneurs. Mr Kekhman therefore sought to invoke English jurisdiction and English bankruptcy law to secure a transparent administration of his international affairs and to assist with his business rehabilitation.
He accordingly visited London for two days during which he presented a petition for his own bankruptcy. Chief Registrar Baister made the order requested, and subsequently rejected an annulment application by the Bank of Moscow. This refusal of annulment was challenged before Morgan J on the subject appeal.
Mr Justice Morgan had to consider whether Chief Registrar Baister decided correctly when he refused to annul the bankruptcy order.
The question arose because the Bank of Moscow objected to the English bankruptcy order being made, and sought to argue that it 'ought not to have been made' under the Insolvency Act 1986, s 282.
The challenges by the Bank of Moscow came down to arguments that:
The judge held that a connection with the jurisdiction was required, and that it existed in this case because of Mr Kekhman's English law liabilities, which were subject to English jurisdiction, and which would abate as a result of an English bankruptcy. He rejected the argument that an English bankruptcy order would operate unfairly among creditors, essentially because the objections taken were theoretical rather than real on the facts of the case. In particular, the judge did not disturb the Chief Registrar's assessment that the order would not be recognised in Russia. The real impact of an English order would therefore be outside Russia—in England in relation to English law liabilities subject to English jurisdiction, and in other jurisdictions which may choose to recognise the English order depending on whether they preferred free-for-all or orderly distribution. Accordingly, there was no incursion on comity as against Russia. There was also benefit to an English order because it would discharge Mr Kekhman's English law liabilities, and provide an opportunity for his partial rehabilitation in England and/or in other jurisdictions that recognised the order.
This is a leading judgment on the accessibility of English bankruptcy to foreign debtors, and especially those beset by liabilities subject to English law and jurisdiction. It represents a value judgment in favour of the English law policy of rehabilitation coupled with orderly and transparent distribution of a debtor's assets. An English court will further that policy where there are sufficient connections with the jurisdiction (especially English law liabilities) and where there is an international estate, even if the debtor is subject to a free-for-all at home.
The case illustrates the potential for a commercial and pragmatic approach to bankruptcy of individuals with international business interests, where a significant part of their liabilities are subject to English law and jurisdiction. English law may offer a route to their international rehabilitation even where the law of their home-state does not.
Michael Swainston QC has a broad litigation and advisory practice in England and overseas in areas including commercial and corporate litigation, international arbitration, human rights, humanitarian law and related public international law. He has particular experience in litigation connected with Russia and CIS countries, and acts for the Russian Federation in the European Court of Human Rights. In JSC Bank of Moscow v Kekhman and others, Michael was leading counsel for the First Respondent.
Interviewed by Kate Beaumont.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
If you are a LexisPSL Subscriber, click the link below for further information:
Personal insolvency and centre of main interests
The immediate effects of a bankruptcy order on the bankrupt
Not a subscriber? Find out more about how LexisPSL can help you and click here for a free trial of LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency.
First published on LexisPSL Restructuring and Insolvency
0330 161 1234