Join Hon. Allan L. Gropper, a former U.S. bankruptcy judge, and Hon. Paul Heath, Chief Justice of the Pitcairn Islands, as they dive into the complexities of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. They explore the controversial public policy exception and its applications in the U.S., Australia, and New Zealand. Discover key legal interpretations, including the Comey test, and how different jurisdictions navigate procedural fairness. Their insights reveal the ongoing challenges and evolving landscape of international insolvency law.
The public policy exception within cross-border insolvency is interpreted narrowly in the U.S., emphasizing procedural fairness in foreign proceedings.
Australia's and New Zealand's differing approaches to the public policy exception reflect varying judicial thresholds and legislative recommendations for its application.
Deep dives
Public Policy Exception in the U.S. Bankruptcy System
The public policy exception within Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code has been a critical point of discussion. Early cases evaluated the applicability of this exception concerning actions that contradicted U.S. public policy. However, several appellate court decisions have determined that this exception should be interpreted narrowly, often reserving it for instances where procedural fairness in foreign proceedings is significantly in doubt. For example, a notable case involving a German trustee sought U.S. authorization for an email wiretap, which was deemed to violate not only U.S. criminal law but also established public policy, showcasing the narrow application of the exception.
Comparative Analysis of Public Policy in Australia and New Zealand
Australia and New Zealand implemented the MLCBI framework closely together, yet their approaches to the public policy exception vary. In New Zealand, the Law Commission recommended that public policy arguments be primarily raised with government involvement, leading to limited case law on this exception. Conversely, Australia has seen instances where courts have dismissed public policy arguments, maintaining a high threshold for such claims. A significant Australian case modified a recognition order to avoid applying the public policy exception, underscoring the courts' creativity in dealing with complex cross-border insolvency issues.
Judicial Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception
The public policy exception raises vital questions about the interpretation and judicial discretion across jurisdictions. Both experts argue that while some might advocate for broadening the scope of public policy considerations, keeping it narrow allows courts to adapt to unique legal contexts effectively. Countries like Singapore have approached the public policy exception without the word 'manifestly,' yet have maintained a high standard for its application. This collaborative discourse suggests that while interpretations may vary, a cautious approach keeps the application of public policy exceptions consistent and manageable across different legal systems.
In this episode, we talk to Hon. Allan L. Gropper (ret.), US Bankruptcy Court SDNY, USA, and Hon. Paul Heath KC, Chief Justice of the Pitcairn Islands and Judge of the Court of Appeal of Tonga, New Zealand, about UNCITRAL's Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (MLCBI). We specifically focus on the somewhat controversial "public policy exception", and its treatment through legislation and case in the US, Australia and New Zealand.
Join the conversation on Twitter or LinkedIn using #INSOLTalks Follow INSOL ERA on Twitter @ERA_insol
Interviewer: Ishana Tripathi, O.P. Jindal Global University, India Introduction and credits voiced by Lisa McNeil, INSOL International Edited and produced by Harriet Norman, INSOL International