An ABI Committee Newsletter
|
|
| Vol 21, Num 2 | September 2026
|
|
|
by
Tal Goldsmith, Stephenson Harwood LLP (London)
Jennifer Jenkins, Mourant Ozannes (British Virgin Islands)
|
|
Greetings from the ABI International Committee leadership. It is hard to believe how quickly this year is passing, with April’s Annual Spring Meeting marking the changes in the composition of the committee leadership and the transition of our former co-chair Kenneth Kraft to new co-chair Tal Goldsmith. Many of you have been juggling client work between trips to the beach and mountains this summer, and we hope that it has brought you some well-earned time to recharge with family and friends.
Welcome to Our New Committee Members
The International Committee continues to grow, and we’d like to extend a particular welcome to our newest members. You can read a bit about some of our newest members in the “New Member Spotlight” section of the newsletter. Our new members perfectly highlight the international reach of this committee.
Read Full Article Online →
|
|
|
by
Dr. Jens P. Rinze, Squire Patton Boggs (Frankfurt, Germany)
|
|
Article 7, paragraph 2, lit. (m) of EU Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 and Article 4, paragraph 2, lit. (m) of the former EU Insolvency Regulation 1346/2000 provide that the law of the EU Member State in which insolvency proceedings have been commenced in respect of a company determines whether certain acts carried out prior to the commencement of insolvency proceedings — such as payments made or security granted by the now-insolvent company — that are detrimental to all creditors of the company are void, voidable or unenforceable and may therefore be clawed back by the insolvency administrator of the company.
However, Article 16 of Regulation 2015/848 and Article 13 of the former Regulation 1346/2000 provide an exception to that general rule. Those articles provide that if the person from whom a payment or asset is to be clawed back proves that the detrimental
action is subject to the laws of an EU Member State other than the Member State in whose jurisdiction insolvency proceedings were commenced, and that under such other governing law no clawback would be available in any respect, that person is free from clawback by the insolvency administrator.
That exception had been thought to apply, in particular, in an international context to shareholder loans granted by holding companies as lenders in one EU Member State to subsidiaries as borrowers in another EU Member State, if such shareholder loans were expressed to be governed by the laws of the lender's jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction of the insolvent company — provided that such other jurisdiction was the jurisdiction of an EU Member State.
Read Full Article Online →
|
|
|
Hon. João de Oliveira Rodrigues Filho
|
|
| Hon. João de Oliveira Rodrigues Filho is a Presiding State Judge at the Court of Justice of São Paulo (TJSP) and served as Assistant Judge to the First Bankruptcy and Restructuring Court of São Paulo from 2016-24. Widely recognized for his expertise in business reorganization and insolvency matters, João was president of FONAJEM (the National Forum of Business Judges) for the 2024-25 term and is actively involved in leading discussions on the development of Brazilian insolvency law and practice. He is an INSOL Fellow and a member of both the International Insolvency Institute (III) and ABI, reflecting his
strong engagement with the global restructuring and insolvency community. João holds a Ph.D. in Business Law from Universidade Nove de Julho and is a specialist in Business Law from the São Paulo School of Judges (EPM).
|
|
|
by
Helena Clarke, Squire Patton Boggs (London)
Jacob Gabor, Squire Patton Boggs (New York)
|
|
For decades, the prevailing assumption in large U.S. restructurings was straightforward: Financially distressed American companies would ultimately seek relief through chapter 11. While chapter 11 remains the world's most influential corporate restructuring regime, recent cases suggest that assumption is becoming less certain.
A growing number of U.S.-connected companies are exploring English restructuring plans under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 as an alternative route to balance-sheet repair. The recent restructuring of New Fortress Energy (NFE) may be the clearest example yet of this evolving trend.
More importantly, the case signals a broader shift in judicial thinking. Rather than viewing forum-shopping as inherently problematic, courts on both sides of the Atlantic appear increasingly willing to support a change in restructuring venue when it
produces demonstrably better outcomes for creditors. In that sense, NFE may be remembered less for its size than for its endorsement of what the English High Court described as "good forum-shopping."
Read Full Article Online →
|
|
|
©2026 American Bankruptcy Institute
All Rights Reserved
American Bankruptcy Institute
99 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 200
Alexandria, VA 22314
Email Preferences | View Online
|
|
|
|
|
