scholarly journals Ley aplicable a las acciones concursales de reintegración (comentario a la STJUE de 8 de junio de 2017, Vinlys Italia) = Applicable law to reintegration actionsin insolvency proceedings (commentary to CJUE judgment 8 June 2017 Vinlys Italia)

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 739
Author(s):  
Ángel Espiniella Menéndez
Keyword(s):  
Applicable Law ◽  
European Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Final Interpretation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
Rome I

Resumen: en el Asunto Vinyls Italia, el TJUE recuerda que la ley rectora del concurso no es base suficiente para revocar un contrato perjudicial para el conjunto de los acreedores, si la contratante prueba que la ley rectora de tal contrato no permite su impugnación. Entre los aciertos de la Sentencia, des­taca que esta excepción no debe amparar prácticas fraudulentas, además de que su tramitación procesal debe hacerse conforme a la lex fori. No obstante, la Sentencia presenta serias dudas al obviar que la de­terminación de la ley rectora del contrato, y su carácter internacional, deben hacerse por el Reglamento Roma I y no por el Reglamento europeo de insolvencia. También es dudosa la remisión a la lex fori para la posible aplicación de oficio de esta excepción; más bien debería jugar a instancia de parte de acuerdo con una interpretación literal y finalista del Reglamento europeo de insolvencia.Palabras clave: acciones concursales de reintegración, ley aplicable, ley rectora del concurso, ley rectora del contrato, tramitación procesalAbstract: in Vinyls Italy Case, the CJEU reminds that the law governing the insolvency proce­eding is not a sufficient basis to revoke a contract detrimental to all creditors, if the contracting party provides proof that the law governing that contract does not allow its revocation. One of the hits of the Judgment is that this defense should not cover fraudulent practices, as well as procedural aspects shall be governed by lex fori. However, the Judgment presents serious doubts when it obviates that the determi­nation of the law governing the contract, and its international consideration, shall be made by the Rome I Regulation and not by the European Insolvency Regulation. The reference to the lex fori is also doubtful in relation with the possible ex officio application of this defense; rather, that defense should play at the request of a party according to a literal and final interpretation of the European Insolvency Regulation.Keywords: reintegration actions, applicable law, law governing insolvency proceedings, law go­verning the contract, procedure

Redeeming Art. 13 of the European Insolvency Regulation

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-74
Author(s):  
Oscar Couwenberg ◽  
Grietje T. de Jong
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Financial Distress ◽  
Corporate Restructuring ◽  
Forum Shopping ◽  
Choice Of Law ◽  
European Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
The Law

This contribution focuses on the interaction between three phenomena: corporate restructuring, choice of law, and transaction avoidance. In this context, scholars have criticised Art. 13 of the European Insolvency Regulation for providing a possibility for forum shopping. This article enables firms to declare the law of the eu Member State where the provisions on transaction avoidance allow for the most freedom to take restructuring measures applicable to contracts. Literature on company restructuring shows that a combination of restructuring measures – usually additional credit for additional conditions and/or collateral - helps companies overcome financial distress. We argue that rules on transaction avoidance should take this balance into account when voidance is demanded. Using the example of Dutch and German rules on transaction avoidance, we argue that the German rules are more accommodative than the Dutch rules. Therefore, firms may benefit using the German rules on transaction avoidance rather than the Dutch rules.

4 Private International Law

2020 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Credit Institution ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
European Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Investment Firm

This chapter begins by analysing the relevant Private International Law rules under EU law. This analysis distinguishes between non-insolvency and insolvency law rules. Outside of insolvency, the rules for the determination of jurisdiction and the recognition of court judgements, as well as the rules for the determination of the law to be applied, are to be found in different statutory EU instruments. If the dispute at hand qualifies as an insolvency matter, an important distinction must be made regarding the qualification of the parties. If the insolvent entity - whether that be the collateral provider or collateral taker - qualifies as an investment firm or a credit institution, the court's jurisdiction is to be determined under the Winding-up Directive, or, more precisely, under the relevant, national rules implementing this Directive. If the insolvent entity does not qualify as an investment firm or a credit institution, the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR Recast) determines the jurisdiction of the insolvency court and the law that the court must apply. The chapter then considers US law in the contexts outside of insolvency and within insolvency, both with respect to questions of jurisdiction in the event of a dispute between the parties as well as of choice of the law governing securities holdings and dispositions.

20 Luxembourg

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wagner Henri
Keyword(s):  
Common Features ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
Rome I

This chapter examines the most common features of set-off (compensation) in Luxembourg and how the rights of set-off are affected by insolvency proceedings. It first provides an overview of set-off between solvent parties and set-off against insolvent parties before discussing cross-border issues relating to right of set-off. In particular, it considers cross-border set-off between solvent parties in cases where the Rome I Regulation or the Rome Convention applies and in cases where neither one applies. It also explains cross-border set-off against insolvent parties, focusing on situations where the Insolvency Regulation or the Recast Insolvency Regulation, as applicable, or another sector specific European insolvency legislation applies or does not apply.

26 Romania

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jardine Bryan W
Keyword(s):  
Civil Code ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
The Law ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings

This chapter provides an overview of the law of set-off in Romania, both outside and within the context of insolvency. Under Romanian law, set-off is of two types: legal set-off, which arises by operation of law, and contractual set-off, which arises through a written agreement between parties. The rules for legal set-off are laid down in the Romanian civil code adopted by Law no. 287/2009 (the New Civil Code). The chapter first considers legal and contractual set-off between solvent parties before discussing set-off against insolvent parties. It explains bilateral set-off as well as financial collateral and challenge in insolvency proceedings. It also analyses the provisions of EU Regulations, EU Insolvency Regulation, and the New Civil Code that are relevant to cross-border set-off.

Registrierte Gegenstände im grenzüberschreitenden Insolvenzverfahren nach der EuInsVO

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
Single Market ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
International Integration ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
European Insolvency Regulation ◽  
European Single Market ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
State Affect ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings

With the growing international integration of corporate activities into the European Single Market, there is also a growing number of insolvencies with cross-border implications. The European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) creates a uniform international insolvency law for this purpose. This work examines how registered assets, i.e. land, ships and aircraft, which belong to a debtor are treated in cross-border insolvency proceedings under the EIR. Essentially, the work answers the question of how insolvency proceedings opened in one EU Member State affect the debtor’s assets that are registered in another Member State and how the insolvency administrator or a secured creditor can realise them. The recent insolvencies of the airlines Air Berlin and Niki in 2017 as well as of numerous shipping funds show the relevance and topicality of this matter.

Commentary on the European Insolvency Regulation

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
New Work ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
European Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Insolvency Regulation ◽  
Article Analysis ◽  
Key Features ◽  
Effectiveness And Efficiency ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings

This book provides a detailed article-by-article commentary on the recast EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR), written by a group of experts drawn from several European jurisdictions. The commentary is prefaced by an introductory chapter that explains the rationale for the EIR, charts the background to its enactment, and sketches its key features as originally made and as recast. The commentary that follows has been published in time to cover the long-awaited and much-debated recast Regulation which was finalised in 2015. The introduction of the recast EIR has given authors and editors the opportunity to analyse a newly drafted and modernised law, containing a highly sophisticated set of rules designed to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of Member State insolvency laws in cross-border cases. The timing of publication will enable practitioners and scholars to equip themselves with a thorough understanding of the recast EIR ahead of full implementation in 2017. The article-by-article analysis has a multi-jurisdictional focus which reports and evaluates significant developments in the application of the Regulation across Member States. This is a key new work for all those who advise on or research European insolvency law.

scholarly journals Prawo właściwe dla skutków przelewu wierzytelności w stosunku do osób trzecich. Uwagi z perspektywy międzynarodowego prawa upadłościowego

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. 47-75
Author(s):  
Wojciech Klyta
Keyword(s):  
Third Parties ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Insolvency Law ◽  
Conflict Of Laws ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Right ◽  
Insolvency Proceedings ◽  
Rome I ◽  
Foreseeable Risk

The claims are rights in personam but the assignment of claims has a hybrid nature. Abolishing the “nomina ossibus inhaerent” rule has increased commercial significance of the assignment of claims. However, the contemporary legal situationleaves parties with great legal uncertainty, as to the question under which circumstances does the cross — borders assignment is valid. A recent judgment of the CJEU of 9 October 2019 (C — 548/18) in case BGL BNP Paribas SA v. TeamBank AG Nürnberg has augmented this uncertainty. The Luxemburg Court ruled that: “Article 14 of the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as not designating, directly or by analogy, the applicable law concerning the third-party effects of the assignment of a claim in the event of multiple assignments of the claim by the same creditor to successive assignees”. In this situation, one would highly welcome an attempt to establish a new set of conflict of laws rules relating to the law applicable to third — parties effects of the assignment of claims. This attempt has recently been made by the European Commission in its Report “on the question of the effectiveness of an assignment or subrogation of a claim against third parties and the priority of the assigned or subrogated claim over the right of another person”, dated 29 September 2016. In the present article, the author reviews the most important propositions formulated in the conflicts’ doctrine through the “lens” of the international insolvency law. Multiply provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) — despite many judgments of the CJEU in this area — also lack certainty. Insolvency is a foreseeable risk, but without clear rules concerning the third parties’ effects of the assignment of claims, it may become unenforceable for the creditors of the assignor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document