Council Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the “Regulation”), entered into force on 31 May 2002 and was originally enacted to harmonize rules in relation to cross-border insolvency proceedings within the European Union, save for Denmark.

Location:

October 2017

INSURE

InSure

This month's roundup of developments affecting the insurance industry sees ECON calling on the European Commission to postpone the application date of the IDD, EIOPA issuing final guidelines on complex insurance-based investment products under the IDD and the European Commission releasing a report on consumers' decision-making process in insurance services.

General Update

A common experience of most European insolvency law systems is the legislators‘ constant swinging backwards and forwards in their attempts to find a balance between the interests of the creditors (which inspired the legislator when insolvency laws were enacted for the first time in1942 in Italy) with those of the debtor and its owners, as well as the need to protect jobs and rescue viable businesses for the benefit of the economy as a whole. The first Italian insolvency law was enacted in 1942, and was modelled on the German Konkursordnung.

The Italian Government has been delegated to enact a comprehensive restatement of the whole set of rules of insolvency procedures, with specific innovative addresses regarding (to mention only the most important) the concordato preventivo procedure, venue rules, an out-of-court mediation alert process to timely address a risk of insolvency, new forms of security and a streamlined set of priorities among creditors

Introduction

Current Legislation Coordinator: Rosana Hallett Of counsel of GA_P No . 212017 Current Legislation No . 21 | 2017 2 © Gómez-Acebo & Pombo Abogados, 2017. All rights reserved Disclaimer: This digest is provided for general information purposes only and nothing expressed herein should be construed as legal advice or recommendation. Design and layout: José Á. Rodríguez and Ángela Brea • Translation and adaptation: John Woodger Contents I. Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

The EU directive 2012/30/EU proposed in November 2016 (“Proposed Directive”) aims to avoid the adverse effects of insolvency on companies through a more flexible regime of restructuring.

In our update this month we take a look at a case in which a non-party costs order was made against a major shareholder in the insolvent claimant company. The court found that the shareholder was the real party to the litigation; it funded the litigation, it was exercising control over the litigation and it would have been the main beneficiary had the litigation succeeded. We cover this, and other issues affecting the insolvency and fraud industry:

Montpelier Business Reorganisation Ltd v Jones & Others (2017)

Background

De belastingplichtige houdt indirect aandelen in een BV. De BV heeft een schuld aan de bank in verband waarmee de belastingplichtige zich tot een bedrag van € 150.000 borg heeft gesteld. Nadat de BV in 2010 failliet gaat, vormt de belastingplichtige een voorziening van € 150.000 in verband met de borgstelling. In 2011 betaalt de belastingplichtige uiteindelijk, tegen finale kwijting, € 30.000 aan de bank. Volgens de inspecteur valt € 120.000 van de gevormde voorziening belast vrij in 2011.
Firm: