A recent Federal Court of Australia decision has granted the Australian Commissioner of Taxation the right to recover, from a failed foreign company’s Australian assets, the pari passu amount the Commissioner would have been entitled to receive (on account of outstanding domestic tax and penalties) if he had been allowed to prove in the liquidation before the assets are remitted to the company’s foreign representatives (the liquidators). 

In response to the coronavirus outbreak, a number of government and central bank measures are available to businesses in Europe. Additionally, insolvency laws have been updated. Our guidance outlines what this means to businesses in 14 countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and UK.

The EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency was published in the OJEU on Wednesday. Members states have until 17 July 2020 to implement it, and this includes the UK as it stands: the UK has much – but not all – of it already. The UK Government has its own plans for reforming insolvency law of course, including to re-introduce Crown Preference. It is mostly about creating a rescue framework.

In Budimex SA (C224/18), the CJEU was asked by a Polish Court to determine the time of supply in relation to a construction contract where no invoice was issued in accordance with articles 63 and 66 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD), which provide that the chargeable event for VAT purposes is when the services are supplied.

While a range of outcomes, including a departure under the terms of the current Withdrawal Agreement, remains possible, it is important for businesses to plan for a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement or other deal. Here we look at the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on cross-border corporate recovery and insolvency.

Key issues

Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.

As we send this final edition of Global Insight for 2018, Rick and I would like to thank you for your continued support of our multi-award-winning Global Restructuring Group. Undeterred by a back-drop of trade tariffs and Brexit, governments and professionals around the world have continued to try to develop laws and protocols to facilitate the best possible recoveries for creditors from cross-border financial distress. Since the dramatic events of 2008, jurisdictions have sought to bolster their insolvency laws, and many, to supplement them with pre-insolvency restructuring options.

Basel and other regulators seem to regard credit risk as being under control and have identified reputational and IT risks – risk you cannot close off with prudential capital charges – as the sources of the next crisis. Another one being talked about is potential illiquidity for funds, which are buying more illiquid assets in the hunt for yield.

INSOL Europe attended the 52nd session of Working Group V (Insolvency law) held in Vienna from 18 to 22 December 2018 in its capacity as an invited international non-governmental organisation (NGO) with observer status. Other observers included, inter alia, World Bank, European Investment Bank, European Banking Federation, the American Bar Association, the International Bar Association, INSOL International, International Insolvency Institute, European Law Institute.

The INSOL International Channel Islands Seminar took place on 13 September 2017 in Guernsey, where tensions rose high as jurisdictions battled it out for the crown of the "go-to" jurisdiction for cross border restructurings.