22.3.2021

Brexit Leaves Recognition of Insolvency Proceedings in Unknown Territory

In the European Union, the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) determines the jurisdiction for a debtor’s insolvency proceedings, the law applicable to those proceedings and provides for mandatory recognition of the proceedings in other EU member states.

With the end of the implementation period for Brexit on 31 December 2020, the EIR is now no longer in force between the UK and the EU member states, which leaves the recognition of insolvency proceedings in unknown territory. In this blog we will discuss what officeholders in both UK and Finland must consider when seeking recognition and assistance in other countries post-Brexit. 

Recognition of Insolvency Proceedings Opened before 31 December 2020

As of 1 January 2021, the EIR continues to apply to insolvency proceedings in the UK in cases where the main proceedings were opened before the end of the implementation period on 31 December 2020. In these cases, there will be no changes, and insolvency proceedings commenced in the UK will be automatically recognised in the EU member states. Likewise, main proceedings that have been opened before 31 December 2020 in any EU member state will be automatically recognised in the UK.

However, if proceedings have been opened after 1 January 2021, the situation is considerably less clear, and recognition must be sought through the national laws of the UK or the EU member state in question respectively.

Recognition of Finnish Proceedings in the UK

The UK has implemented the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency with its Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. This provides a framework for recognition by the UK courts of proceedings started in another country and assistance to foreign representatives.

A Finnish administrator seeking recognition of proceedings in the UK can bring a court application under the UK Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006. This requires that the debtor’s centre of main interests or establishment is in Finland. It will be subject to greater court scrutiny than under the EIR and only provide a route to recognition for insolvency proceedings, not other insolvency-related judgments.

English courts may also assist foreign officeholders under common law principles. In addition, insolvency related judgments can be recognised under common law if they meet the criteria set down in the UK Supreme Court decision on the enforceability of foreign judgments in the case of Rubin v. Eurofinance S.A. [2012] UKSC 46.

Recognition of UK Proceedings in Finland in Legal Limbo

Finland does not recognise foreign insolvency proceedings unless specifically provided for in legislation. There currently is no national Finnish legislation that would provide for the recognition of insolvency proceedings outside the scope of the EIR or the Nordic Bankruptcy Convention, which Finland applies with Norway, Iceland and Denmark.

This means that there is no legislative basis for recognising UK insolvency proceedings in Finland. The lack of a legal framework makes it difficult to draw solid legal conclusions from the current situation. It could be argued that a foreign insolvency officeholder’s status will be recognised in Finland if it cannot be regarded as being against the ordre public doctrine. This would mean that the status of officeholders from the UK should mainly be recognised. Consequently, a UK officeholder should be able to access the debtor’s assets situated in Finland if the debtor would have the same right. This would require that the officeholder is able to produce a reliable account of their status and authority and that there are no concurrent proceedings in Finland.

The officeholder could also be a party in a claim against a third party who is said to be in possession of the debtor’s assets. However, as the situation currently stands, insolvency proceedings initiated in the UK do not have any automatic effect on enforcement proceedings directed at a British debtor’s assets in Finland. Therefore, a British officeholder’s status alone will not enable them to compete with creditors who are looking to enforce their claims from the assets the debtor has in Finland.

Separate bankruptcy proceedings could also be initiated in Finland under the Finnish Bankruptcy Act (120/2004) if the debtor has an establishment here or if the debtor has funds in Finland that justify initiating separate proceedings. These proceedings would in many ways be similar to secondary proceedings under the EIR. In practice, the simplest way for a UK trustee to initiate separate proceedings in Finland is to get authorisation from a creditor to file for bankruptcy in Finland.

The Way Forward

As it stands, Finnish officeholders seem to have two main options: seeking assistance and recognition of their proceedings in UK courts under the UK Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations 2006 or under common law principles.

UK officeholders seeking assistance or recognition in Finland are in an even more uncertain position. Finnish legislation does not grant any support for recognising proceedings outside the scope of the EIR or the Nordic Bankruptcy Convention. Nevertheless, the officeholder’s status will likely be recognised, enabling them to access the assets of the debtor or to file claims. UK proceedings will not, however, directly give protection against creditors seeking enforcement of their claims in Finland. Separate proceedings could also be opened in Finland if the criteria for opening those proceedings are met.

We are currently in unknown territory, and attempts to find new practices will be overshadowed by a great deal of uncertainty from some time to come.

Latest references

Our partner Pauliina Tenhunen acts as the administrator of the bankruptcy estate of European Battery Technologies Oy. The bankruptcy estate sold all assets of the bankrupt company, including its battery factory equipment and IP rights related to the operations. The equipment sold was the first of its kind in the 2010s and the factory was the first in Europe to produce LFP batteries. The buyer is Estonia and Germany-based Skeleton Technologies, a global developer and manufacturer of energy storage solutions. The buyer will continue operations in the premises rented by the bankrupt company in Varkaus, Finland. The owner of the premises is Keski-Savon Teollisuuskylä Oy, a company owned by the city of Varkaus. The bankruptcy administration is very pleased with this outcome as the continued operation of the battery factory was a priority also for the bankruptcy estate.
Case published 26.5.2023
We advised Litorina Capital, a Swedish private equity house, in the merger of two leading indoor playground chains in the Nordics, Leo’s Lekland and HopLop. Litorina IV fund, the main owner of Leo’s Lekland, and CapMan Special Situations I, the main owner of HopLop, agreed on an ownership arrangement that will unite Leo’s Lekland and HopLop into Europe’s leading indoor playground group. Both parties will continue their ownership in the new combined group. The HopLop chain continues to operate in Finland under the HopLop brand. The new group will be Europe’s largest family focused activity and exercise company. It has a total of 68 parks in Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Germany. Leo’s Lekland is the largest indoor playground chain in the Nordic countries, with a total of 50 parks in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland and Germany. There are 7 parks in Finland. HopLop is the largest children’s adventure and indoor playground chain and the most significant family focused activity and exercise company in Finland. There are 17 HopLop parks in Finland and 1 in Germany. Litorina is a private equity investment firm based in Stockholm, Sweden. It was founded in 1998. It invests in niche market leading companies with headquarters in the Nordics. Currently it has 13 portfolio companies.
Case published 2.2.2023
Relacom Finland Oy was declared bankrupt in 2019 upon the company’s own application. Relacom Finland Oy was one of the leading telecommunication services companies in Finland, and it had activities across Finland. The company offered, for example, installation and maintenance of telecommunication networks and power grids. When bankruptcy was declared, the company had around 400 employees. The bankruptcy proceedings were concluded in approximately three years, and the creditors approved the final settlement of accounts in December 2022. Attorney Pekka Jaatinen served as the administrator of the bankruptcy estate. After the beginning of the bankruptcy, the bankruptcy estate examined the company’s unfinished projects and finished them to the extent that was profitable. The rest of the projects were shut down in a controlled manner and handed over to the customer. Some of the projects were also socially important. The bankruptcy estate hired 112 of the company’s employees for fixed-term employment to finish projects and to ensure that the shutdown was carried out in a controlled manner. However, the bankruptcy administration did not continue the company’s business. The company’s fixed assets and inventories consisted of, among other things, various tools, equipment and several vehicles. The bankruptcy estate identified different options for efficient ways to liquidate assets, and selling was carried out in cooperation with an external liquidator. The liquidation result from finishing projects and selling the company’s movable property was significant and higher than the book value. Unsecured creditors accrued approximately 41% disbursements in the bankruptcy.
Case published 11.1.2023
Otso Gold Oy, an ore exploration and mining company, filed an application for initiating restructuring proceedings to the Oulu District Court on 3 December 2021. At that time, the company owned the Laivakangas gold mine, which is located in Raahe, Finland, on one of the biggest gold deposits in the Nordic countries. The company’s restructuring proceedings commenced on 17 February 2022, and the District Court ordered Attorney Pekka Jaatinen to serve as the administrator. At the time of commencement of the proceedings, the company was part of the Otso Gold group, whose Canadian parent company Otso Gold Corp is listed on the Toronto stock exchange. Due to the cross-border nature of the group, simultaneous restructuring applications were filed in Finland, Sweden and Canada. Otso Gold needed to carry out a financing and ownership arrangement in order to safeguard the continuation of its business and the fulfilment of its restructuring programme. Through the restructuring proceedings, Otso Gold was able to carry out a corporate transaction whereby the restructuring and the related proceedings were based on the sale of the company’s entire share capital to Pilar Gold Inc., a Canadian gold mining company. Simultaneously, Otso Gold was provided with financing for the implementation of the restructuring programme. Creditors representing over 93% of all debts of Otso Gold supported the restructuring programme based on the transaction concerning the entire company. The District Court of Oulu affirmed the one-day restructuring programme in October 2022 and appointed Attorney Pekka Jaatinen as supervisor of the programme.  The restructuring programme and its payment programme were carried out in their entirety approximately one week later, and the restructuring programme ended successfully on 17 November 2022.
Case published 29.12.2022