On 30 November 2015, the European Commission published a proposal to replace the existing Prospectus Directive (Directive 2003/71/EC) with a regulation. The proposal for the new Prospectus Regulation forms part of the European Commission's plan to establish a Capital Markets Union by 2019.

The COP21 climate change negotiations began this morning in Paris with the assembly being addressed by more than 150 heads of state. Although some expect the Paris negotiations to produce an agreement covering all countries, central to the COP21 discussion is the question of how legally binding any “Paris Agreement” will be. Read more.

This month we have drawn together some of the Pensions Ombudsman’s (PO’s) 2015 determinations in two areas which are notoriously problematic for trustees and administrators: transfers of benefits where pensions liberation is a potential issue; and the award of lump sum death benefits. The salient points are highlighted below, and all decisions are available for further reading, if required, on the PO’s website. We also assess briefly two High Court decisions awaiting review in the Court of Appeal.

Introduction This article aims to offer a concise survey of what judges should consider before opening secondary proceedings in an EU Member State. This theme was triggered at the training sessions of the EU/III Judicial Cooperation (“JudgeCo”) project for judges on the European Insolvency Regulation (“EIR”) and its then upcoming revision (“EIR Recast”) quarter of 2014 in Istanbul Riga4 and Amsterdam. over sixty mostly ‘first-instance’ insolvency judges from over 15 EU countries were involved.

With the new Chapter V on group insolvencies, the EIR recast has finally filled an often moaned about gap in the EIR. But the new rules have been deliberately confined to the procedural level – they do not provide for any substantive consolidation. This is a sensible approach, because substantive consolidation would not only frustrate the legitimate expectations of creditors, but would be tantamount to completely abandoning the fundamental cornerstone principles of separate legal entity and limited liability at the very moment when they are most important: insolvency.

The CJEU has recently ruled in the case of USDAW and B.Wilson v VW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation), Ethel Austin Ltd, and the Secretary of state for Business, Innovation and Skills on how the meaning of “establishment,” as used in the Collective Redundancies Directive, should be interpreted in the EU. The Directive is aimed to approximate Member State laws on procedures for making large scale redundancies to afford greater protection to workers through consultation obligations when at risk of redundancy due to an employer’s financial problems.

How does the Juncker plan link in with the Energy Union and how does the Cohesion Fund interact with the Projects of Common Interest? Are the new guidelines from EIOPA relevant to energy infrastructure and where does the Capital Markets Union fit in? Over the last couple of years, there has been a flurry of activity from the European Commission and the agencies of the European Union, particularly in the energy market. We have seen the launch of the Projects of Common Interest, the Juncker Plan, the Energy Union and the Capital Markets Union.

For over five years, Greece has been subject to severe austerity measures in its quest to service its sovereign debt. Greece has had to resort to both European and international institutions (the Troika1 ) for financial support. In return, a series of commitments were imposed with the goal of eliminating fiscal imbalances, achieving fiscal surpluses and market flexibility.

The Ordinance of 12 March 2014 and its Decree of 30 June 2014 have enacted a set of provisions aiming at the coordination of insolvency proceedings applicable to groups of companies facing financial difficulties (C. com, Articles L. 662-8 and R. 662-18 & seq.). The Ordinance creates a new function through the coordinator for groups which are defined according to the companies law, depending on the ownership of a majority of shares and control (C. com, Article L. 233-3)

In a highly regulated environment, it is challenging for US corporations to maintain 100% compliance with each and every law touching them. When issues arise, US corporations rely on the ability to have full and frank discussions with their legal counsel to assess risk and take corrective action to minimize loss. The possibility to have such private discussions is based on the attorney-client privilege, which prohibits legal counsel from divulging privileged communications to any third party.