This Q&A focuses on the need to modernise the EU Insolvency Regulation to facilitate the restructuring of businesses in financial difficulty.

Questions include: why do the current rules need updating, what is the impact of the insolvency rules on the economy, how many businesses are affected and what are the next steps?

On 30 March 2012, the European Commission published a consultation on the future of European insolvency law.

The cornerstone of European insolvency law is Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000, known as the Insolvency Regulation. The Insolvency Regulation has been in force since 31 May 2002 and applies whenever a debtor has assets or creditors in more than one member state. It sets out provisions in relation to jurisdiction, recognition, applicable law and the coordination of insolvency proceedings opened in several member states.

On 22 February the European Council published guidelines for the rescue and restructuring of financial institutions. The objective of the initiative is to maintain a level playing field between member states granting state aid measures for the rescue and/or restructuring of a financial institution in difficulty.

The European Commission has published a report by external consultants (Oxera), Should aid be granted to firms in difficulty, a study on counterfactual scenarios to restructuring state aid? It is intended to inform the Commission of the consequences for intended recipients and their relevant industries if aid is not given, including whether the aid will, in fact, save jobs and economic activity.

A report has been published on whether the harmonisation of the insolvency laws of EU Member States is necessary or worthwhile. The European Parliament commissioned the report, and it was produced and published by INSOL Europe, the professional association for European restructuring and insolvency specialists.

The report considers:

Businesses in all sectors are facing very challenging times arising from the outset of, and reaction to, the Coronavirus (COVID-19). With the challenges in some instances being unprecedented, directors of affected companies need to be cognisant of their duties especially around decisions they are looking at making to get through current difficulties

Overview

The recent approval by the Irish High Court of a scheme of arrangement that restructured US$1.65bn of liabilities of Ballantyne Re plc (Ballantyne) confirms Dublin as one of the most effective restructuring venues in the EU. The detailed decision of Justice Barniville (available here) offers significant precedential value and is a clear endorsement that Irish schemes can be used to implement complex cross border restructurings. The Irish statute governing schemes is very similar to that of England and Wales.

Essence of the Ballantyne scheme:

Introduction

There are two principal mechanisms for the dissolution of a solvent Irish company:

• Voluntary Strike-Off (VSO); and
• Members' Voluntary Liquidation (MVL).

To the extent there are other Irish or EU entities in the group, it may also be possible to dissolve the company by way of merger with another group entity.

If a transaction by a company amounts to an "unlawful distribution", and the company subsequently goes into liquidation, will an action for recovery of the benefits of that distribution, brought against the directors who authorised the transaction, be statute-barred if it is commenced by the liquidator of the company more than 6 years after the distribution was made?

In Reilly & Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 [2017] IEHC 558, Baker J, 5 October, 2017, the High Court held that applications to Court under Section 115A of the Personal Insolvency Acts 2012-2015 (the Acts), for approval of a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA) despite its rejection by creditors, must be made by a Personal Insolvency Practitioner (PIP) and not by the Debtor themselves.