Cross-border co-operation

Mechanisms for co-operation

Following the loss of the main operative parts of the EU Recast Regulation on Insolvency, Regulation (EU) 848/2015 (see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on Recast Regulation on Insolvency) and Brussels I (recast) (see Practice Note: E&W Brussels I (recast)—application and exclusions) following Brexit (see Practice Note: EU collection—Restructuring and Insolvency), the UNCITRAL Model law on cross-border insolvency (see Practice Note: UNCITRAL Model Laws—overview) and the following provisions can also assist with co-operation between foreign courts and/or foreign office-holders:

•
comity (under the English courts' general common law powers)
•
section 426 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986)
•
cross-border protocols
•
cross-border guidelines
•
Insolvency judgments and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 (FJ(RE)A 1933)

For a comparison of the tools, see Practice Note: List of available cross-border insolvency and restructuring tools by country worldwide. For a handy checklist, see: Cross border considerations—checklist and Inbound proceedings—foreign insolvency practitioner seeking recognition in the UK.

For details of how EU Member States recognise insolvency proceedings in third party countries

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Restructuring & Insolvency News

New Flowchart: Transactions at an undervalue under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986—flowchart

The LexisNexis Restructuring & Insolvency practical guidance team has published a new Flowchart—‘Transactions at an undervalue under section 238 of the Insolvency Act 1986–flowchart'. This Flowchart sets out the conditions that must be satisfied for the court to declare that a transaction was at an undervalue and grant relief.

Interpreting ‘carrying on business’ for bankruptcy petition jurisdiction (Bridging Finance Inc v Lyons)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: A bankruptcy petition can be presented against an individual provided that, among other things, they have ‘carried on business in England and Wales’ in the three years preceding the petition. In Lyons, the court decided that a bankruptcy petition could be presented against a Bahamas-based debtor on the basis of his personal dealings with one property in England. It rejected an argument that the condition was satisfied because the Bahamas-domiciled debtor had an ownership/control interest in more than 30 companies incorporated in England and Wales. This judgment clarifies, among other things, the meaning of ‘carrying on business in England and Wales’ for the purposes of a bankruptcy petition. Written by Aziz Abdul, legal director and Claire Robinson, managing associate at Addleshaw Goddard LLP.

Insolvency, declarations of trust, loan agreements, artificial asset protection, sham transactions, transactions defrauding creditors, interspousal asset transfers, change of position defence and wife’s entitlement to share of husband’s assets (Sayers v Dixon)

Restructuring & Insolvency analysis: The court held that six declarations of trust (DoTs) executed by the transferor (Mr Dixon) in favour of his wife (Mrs Dixon) constituted transactions defrauding his creditors within the meaning of section 423 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) and that two of them, purporting to transfer all his future assets and income to Mrs Dixon, along with an accompanying loan agreement, were shams which were void and ineffective. It set aside the DoTs and ordered Mrs Dixon to restore the value of three transferred properties (which had been converted into £551,589 cash) to Mr Dixon’s trustees in bankruptcy (trustees) together with interest of £101,726. It also ordered an account to be taken of the funds that had been transferred to Mrs Dixon or on her behalf by Mr Dixon over the seven years between the date of the DoTs and his bankruptcy. The court dismissed Mrs Dixon’s defence of change of position to the trustees’ claim for restoration, finding that even if such a defence were generally available (which is unclear), she had not acted in good faith and could not rely on it. It also dismissed her defence that, having been married to Mr Dixon for many years, she was entitled to half his assets and/or an entitlement to a share of them by virtue of a right to be maintained. Written by Jonathan Lopian, barrister at New Square Chambers, who acted for the successful claimants.

Insolvency Service reports disqualification of Scottish machinery firm director for £1.5m VAT fraud

The Insolvency Service has reported the disqualification of David Smith, former director of FB Realisations Limited (previously Balgownie Limited), from acting as a company director for 11 years following investigations into VAT fraud. Smith admitted to submitting false VAT returns between 2019–2022, resulting in £1.57m of undeclared VAT to HMRC. The Scottish machinery firm entered administration in March 2024 owing £3.16m to creditors. The disqualification undertaking commenced on 21 July 2025 and bans Smith from involvement in company promotion, formation, or management without permission from the court.

View Restructuring & Insolvency by content type :

News