Cross-border insolvency: one set of records, or two?
When a distressed multinational runs a US Chapter 11 case and a UK Part 26A restructuring plan at the same time, the party that presents the same evidence in both courts usually has the advantage.
Two systems, room to diverge. The two regimes use different voting thresholds, approval criteria and fairness tests, which leaves room for the proceedings to drift apart.
How records split. If the proceedings develop separately, witness statements, versions of evidence and valuation ranges can diverge. A debtor can use those gaps to favour one forum and to question the consistency of creditors' positions.
One record, one set of experts. Senior creditors should agree early on a single core factual record, the same experts and one theory of asset value.
What it costs. US and UK counsel must coordinate closely, and a joint financial expert may be needed.
Unify the facts, not the law. Legal arguments still have to be built for each jurisdiction: the US best-interests standard, the UK “no worse off” test and each regime's fairness requirements need their own justification. What is unified is the factual basis, so that the core facts in both records are free of contradictions.
