scholarly journals Harmonising insolvency law in the EU : New thoughts on old ideas in the wake of the COVID ‐19 pandemic

Author(s):  
Emilie Ghio ◽  
Gert‐Jan Boon ◽  
David Ehmke ◽  
Jennifer Gant ◽  
Line Langkjaer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 664-684
Author(s):  
Christian Heinze ◽  
Cara Warmuth

Abstract In March 2018, the European Commission issued its proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to third-party effects of assignments of claims, aiming to put an end to the ongoing debate on this issue and the legal uncertainty associated with it. On the basis of the Commission’s decision in favour of the application of the law of the assignor’s habitual residence, this article discusses the consequences of the Proposal under European Union (EU) insolvency law. For that purpose, the coherence of the Proposal with the Insolvency Regulation will be examined, first in general and then in more detail. The analysis comes to the result that the Commission’s objective of aligning the Proposal with the legal framework of the Insolvency Regulation has predominantly been well achieved. The authors point out remaining minor inaccuracies that may be clarified in the further legislative process or by later case law. It is concluded that, from the perspective of international insolvency law, the proposed uniform conflict-of-laws rule at the EU level offers a good opportunity to promote legal certainty with regard to cross-border assignments of claims in the future.


2016 ◽  
Vol 66 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Keay

AbstractCross-border transactions and resultant legal proceedings often cause problems. One major problem is knowing which law should govern the transaction and any legal proceedings. Cross-border insolvencies in the EU are subject to the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR) but this legislation does not determine which substantive insolvency law rules apply in a given insolvency. There are many differences in the insolvency rules applicable in the various EU Member States and this has caused concern in relation to the avoidance of transactions entered into by an insolvent prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings. In light of this, the paper examines options to address divergence between national avoidance rules. One option, harmonization, is analysed as well as its possible benefits and drawbacks.


Author(s):  
Gabriel Moss QC ◽  
Bob Wessels ◽  
Matthias Haentjens

Following the chaotic effects of the global financial crisis on European financial markets, the legislative regime introduced by the European Union (EU) represents a dramatic new approach to bank insolvency law, and will have a profound effect on the way banks function. The second edition of EU Banking and Insurance Insolvency evaluates these important developments and their implications for the Eurozone countries. A comprehensive general introduction sets out the EU insolvency law framework and the principles which govern financial institutions. The book provides detailed commentary on the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation (SRMR), the legislative instruments central to the EU's response to the crisis, intended to harmonize Member States law. It considers the new powers given to government authorities under the BRRD to write down shares and debt instruments issued by banks, and the function of the newly created 'Single Resolution Board'. Commentary on the Winding-Up Directive (2001/24/EC) and the Insurance Insolvency Directive (2001/17/EC) discusses the significant changes these statutes have undergone as a consequence of the adoption of the BRRD and SRMR, as well as several high-profile court cases decided on the interpretation of these two statutes, including the Landsbanki and Kaupthing cases, and the Lehman Brothers, Isis Investments, and Heritable Bank cases. This is an invaluable practitioner guide to the new European banking insolvency regime, written by experts in the field.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henrik Heß

The EU Commission has presented a very controversial proposal for a directive aimed at harmonising restructuring standards throughout Europe, whose focus is on preventive, out-of-court restructuring procedures. This is the first monographic study to provide information about the draft directive. It presents extremely up-to-date, detailed and critical information on the proposed individual regulations, embeds them in a European and German context and offers concrete implementation proposals for German legislators. Although the final version of the directive is not yet available, this analysis already shows that the future restructuring framework will have a huge impact on the German insolvency system. Therefore, not only must scientists and German lawmakers deal with this proposal in good time, but so must businesses in general and above all practitioners in the field of restructuring and insolvency law.


2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-376
Author(s):  
Gerard McCormack

Abstract This paper asks whether the UK can maintain its insolvency and restructuring pre-eminence post Brexit i. e. after Britain’s departure from the European Union (EU). In the past 20 years or so, the UK is said to have become the insolvency and restructuring capital of Europe or in less politically correct terms, the bankruptcy brothel of Europe. In part, this is because of the European Insolvency Regulation which provides for automatic recognition of insolvency proceedings opened in a EU Member State in the other EU Member States. Such proceedings may make provision for the discharge of debts and the restructuring of financial obligations.The specific insolvency law regime is part of a more general European Private International Law framework. With Brexit, the UK has now left this framework without any negotiated replacement agreement, a so-called ‘skinny’ Brexit. The loss of the ability to deal with insolvencies and corporate restructurings through a single process, with automatic recognition across the EU, may make it more complex, lengthy and expensive to resolve cross-border cases. It gives rise to the prospect of parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions. The paper also addresses how any disadvantages associated with the ‘skinny’ Brexit may be alleviated.


Author(s):  
Primrose E.R. Kurasha

In this investigation, I will compare and contrast the UNCITRAL model law on cross-border insolvency law (hereafter referred to as ‘UNCITRAL model law’) with the EU Insolvency Regulation against the backdrop of various sources or dispensations of cross-border insolvency law. In this comparison, I will highlight the similarities and differences between the two, as well as discuss the other sources in depth, as they largely inform my research. My main aim in including the other sources in this comparative study is to provide deeper insight into these two sources of international cross-border insolvency law, as provided for by academics and sages in the field of insolvency law. These other sources include legislation, common law, treaties and regional dispensations.


Since the last decade of the last century, the need to treat an enterprise group in insolvency proceedings as one unit is looking for an adequate legislative answer. An efficient administration of insolvency proceedings related to companies belonging to the same group would minimise costs and loss of time, should minimise losses for creditors, employers and shareholders of the companies, assembled in the group and would maximise the groups’ value. However, national insolvency laws applicable in the EU as well as international proposals are based on the central principle of insolvency law, generally being the principle of the five one’s: one insolvent debtor, one estate, one insolvency proceeding, one court, and one insolvency office holder. It is rather complex to apply this strict legal foundation to the economic phenomenon of a group of companies. Remarkably, however, as of 26 June 2017 the EIR (2015) applies a novelty in that groups of companies are addressed in some twenty legislative provisions, in an aim to ‘… ensure the efficient administration of insolvency proceedings relating to different companies forming part of a group of companies’.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document