As has been noted, the term “Chief Restructuring Officer” originated in the United States where indeed the concept of Chief Officer first appeared. It seems to me these days that one is simply a nobody without “Chief ” something or “Officer” in one’s title. The “C suite” so beloved of salespeople is becoming more and more crowded. As Bob and his team remind us it is not necessary for a “CRO” even to be an officer of the company and thus the term has become simply a generic for a specialist in a particular aspect of restructuring. But what is that aspect?

What needs to be taken into account with regard to designing insolvency systems as review and reform of systems on both national and supranational level is taking place within Europe? This was the central theme of the INSOL Europe Academic Forum conference successfully held in the beautiful city of Istanbul. Around eighty insolvency academics and practitioners from twenty different jurisdictions presented and discussed papers at the conference held on 8 and 9 October 2014, including, for the first time, a delegation of 12 scholars and practitioners from the Lebanon.

Cross-border insolvency can often be impeded by the lack of legal coordination between jurisdictions, both in terms of differences in insolvency systems and in other more fundamental differences in legal approach to regulation generally. The European Insolvency Regulation (“EIR”) is one attempt to increase cross-border coordination in an area that is important to business-related market activities. While the EIR aims to coordinate insolvency proceedings within the EU, gaps remain between Member state insolvency procedures as well as in other regulations linked to insolvency.

A recent judgment has confirmed that English courts are willing to sanction schemes of arrangement for foreign companies, even when the original governing law of the finance documents is the law of another jurisdiction. But the judgment suggests that the courts may not be able to take this view in every case, and we are perhaps reaching the limits of the expansive approach to jurisdiction that has dominated the last 5 years. Read more. (Subscription required.)

On 4 November 2014, the Single Supervisory Mechanism (the "SSM") became fully operative.

Signe Viimsalu1 provides a different modus to avoid insolvency of SMEs in Europe. Access to finance for new, innovative small and medium-sized companies involves both debt, which is a common source of external funding among entrepreneurs, and equity finance.

Welcome to issue 11 of Global Insight, bringing you breaking legal developments in restructuring law across borders and in jurisdictions around the world. This issue features: GUEST ARTICLE ■ Chinese companies and offshore debt AMERICAS ■ Bankruptcy sales for distressed hospitals: four questions to ask before you begin ASIA PACIFIC ■ Mirabela Nickel restructuring – an Australian first ■ China Credit – relaxation of restrictions on cross-border security ■ Cross-border insolvencies – recognition of foreign liquidators in Hong Kong CONTINENTAL EUROPE ■ New insolvency law in Romania – a step

Progress under the G20 and OECD Action 13 in regards to the Action Plan to tackle base erosion and profit shifting (‘BEPS’) continues at pace.

by DLA Piper - Jonathan Leitch, Partner With APCOA Parking, the English High Court sets out the latest line of authority in the increasing use of schemes of arrangement by foreign companies. Read more

by DLA Piper - Michael Fiddy, Partner Overturning two significant recent decisions, the Court of Appeal has held that whenever a rent payment day falls, from the moment a company in administration beneficially retains property, it will ordinarily be liable to pay rent as an expense for the period of that beneficial retention. Read more