In case you have just returned from Outer Space- the UK Government has announced that it is holding a referendum on 23 June 2016 on the question:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”

In the meantime, whilst the UK decides whether to Brexit or not, the EU Commission is taking a “business as usual” stance.

The UK’s EU Referendum on membership is looming on the horizon – What are the legal implications of a so-called “Brexit” for restructuring and insolvency professionals?

The EU Referendum Act 2015 obtained Royal Assent on 17 December 2015 and provides for the following question to be put forward for voting in a referendum in the UK until the end of 2017: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the EU or leave the EU?”

Following on from our recent blog on ‘How the UK General Election Might Influence the Recast Insolvency Regulation’ and whether the UK will still be part of the EU in 2017 when it comes into force, we consider the ‘hokey cokey’ of the upcoming EU referendum.

The European Advocate General has today given his opinion in the “Woolworths case” (and two other cases) on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when the duty to consult appropriate representatives is triggered under the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).

In Europe each year there are an estimated 200,000 corporate insolvencies. More than half of the companies set up do not survive their first five years of trading and more than 1.7 million jobs are lost every year as a result. One in five of those companies will have international operations that cross national borders.

The European Union (EU) has sought to introduce an element of harmonization across its Member States, to facilitate the effective operation of cross-border insolvencies.

On June 6, 2012, Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a $2.875 million key employee incentive plan (“KEIP”) in the Velo Holdings bankruptcy cases over the objection of the U.S. Trustee finding that it was primarily incentivizing and a sound exercise of the debtors’ business judgment.  Inre Velo Holdings Inc., Case No. 12-11384 (MG), 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 2535 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).  The decision follows well-settled law in the Southern District and Delaware regarding approval of KEIPs.

On May 25, 2012, Judge Allan L. Gropper of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York approved a motion to compel the production of certain documents under section 1521 of the Bankruptcy Code.  In his decision, Judge Gropper also suggested that the broad discovery provisions of Bankruptcy Rule 2004 may apply to chapter 15 discovery requests, but stopped short of making such a ruling.  In re Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Limited, Case No. 11-13171 (ALG), (Bankr. S.D.N.Y May 25, 2012).

On May 4, 2012 Judge Kevin J. Carey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that a claim against a debtor’s estate, transferred to a third party, is subject to the same infirmities as in the hands of the original holder of the claim.  In re KB Toys, Inc., — B.R. —-, 2012 WL 1570755, at *11 (Bankr. D. Del. 2012).  Judge Carey’s opinion diverged from, and criticized, the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in Enron Corp. v. Springfield Assocs., L.L.C., 379 B.R. 425 (S.D.N.Y.

Background

In the W.R. Grace bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reaffirmed its prior rulings on the controversial issue of a bankruptcy court’s power to enjoin actions by third parties against non-debtors.1 Resting on prior precedent, the Third Circuit held that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction to enjoin third party actions that have no direct effect upon the bankruptcy estate.