Current Issues in European Financial and Insolvency Law — Perspectives from France and the UK

2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 509-513 ◽  
Author(s):  
Felix Steffek
Keyword(s):  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 547-566 ◽  
Author(s):  
Horst Eidenmüller

Abstract In this article, I discuss the rise and fall of regulatory competition in corporate insolvency law in the European Union. The rise is closely associated with the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR, 2002), and it is well documented. The UK has emerged as the ‘market leader’, especially for corporate restructurings. The fall is about to happen, triggered by a combination of factors: the recasting of the EIR (2017), the European Restructuring Directive (ERD, 2019) and Brexit (2019). The UK will lose its dominant market position. I present evidence to support this hypothesis.


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.


2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (4) ◽  
pp. 815-842 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard McCormack

AbstractThis paper critically evaluates ‘forum shopping’ possibilities offered by the UK and US in bankruptcy/insolvency cases. While recognizing that in some quarters forum shopping has a bad name, the paper makes the point that strategic manoeuvring and transaction planning is what litigation and case management is all about. Certain countries are popular as forum shopping venues because of substantive law or the procedural advantages brought about by litigating in that country. The paper concludes that while the UK may have shut its doors too firmly against foreign forum shoppers, the US is too much a safe haven. The paper calls for a measure of jurisdictional restraint through raising entry barriers. While a bit of jurisdictional competition in insolvency law-making may be no bad thing, the US approach runs the risk of undermining important policies considered important by other countries such as the protection of employees and the public purse. It is also asymmetrical in that US bankruptcy jurisdiction is assumed in situations where, if foreign countries had acted on a similar basis, US recognition of the foreign proceedings would be denied.


Legal Studies ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (1) ◽  
pp. 136-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard McCormack

This paper addresses how the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency has been implemented and interpreted in the US and the UK. The Model Law has attained a measure of international acceptance and is intended to achieve greater efficiencies in the administration of insolvency cases with transnational dimensions. But different manners of implementation in different countries and differing interpretations may hinder the prospects for harmonisation and coordination of laws. The paper will address in particular whether US interpretations differ from those in the UK and whether the US decisions are so infused with ‘American exceptionalism’ that they cannot be relied upon as sure guides in other countries.


This practical book provides complete analysis of the revised EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR), the main Regulation on cross-border insolvencies in the EU. This is an essential work for anyone who requires knowledge of insolvency law in the UK or in any of the other 26 EU countries to which the Regulation is directly applicable. Timed to take into account the final amended version of the EIR, this third edition of the leading work contains detailed analysis and opinion on the effect of the changes to Regulation in practice. It also considers the numerous ECJ and relevant national cases which have been decided since the last edition. As in previous editions the work is organised thematically with chapters considering jurisdiction, choice of law rules, enforcement, security, and financial services. Chapter 8 provides an article-by-article commentary of the Regulation itself. This is the leading work on the subject in English and has been cited by numerous courts in the EU, including the Advocate General of the European Court of Justice in the Eurofood case and by the appelate courts of Austria in Re: Stojevic. It is a must-have reference work for lawyers advising on insolvencies with an international element and provides valuable resource in the run up to implementation of the amended Regulation in 2017.


2000 ◽  
Vol 111 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. R. M. Hay ◽  
T. P. Baglin ◽  
P. W. Collins ◽  
F. G. H. Hill ◽  
D. M. Keeling

2006 ◽  
Vol 175 (4S) ◽  
pp. 476-477
Author(s):  
Freddie C. Hamdy ◽  
Joanne Howson ◽  
Athene Lane ◽  
Jenny L. Donovan ◽  
David E. Neal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document