Il y a trois ans déjà, l’ordonnance du 12 mars 2014, conçue dans le but de « simplifier » la gestion des procédures collectives, est venue modifier la procédure de déclaration des créances.
Avant cette réforme, les créanciers (hors salariés) devaient adresser leur déclaration de créances au mandataire judiciaire dans un délai de deux mois (quatre mois pour ceux résidant hors de France Métropolitaine) à partir de la publication au BODACC du jugement ouvrant la procédure de sauvegarde, de redressement ou de liquidation judiciaire, sous peine de forclusion.
As 26 June 2017 approaches – the date of entry into effect of the Recast EU Insolvency Regulation (2015/8484/EU) – we look in detail at the new provisions for co-ordinating the insolvency proceedings of members of a pan-European group of companies and consider whether the new proposals for co-operation will be compulsory, the practicalities of who will pay the co-ordinator’s fees and whether the creditors can have a say in the process.
BACKGROUND
Good news: structured dismissals have survived Supreme Court scrutiny. Bad news: dismissals may be harder to structure, given yesterday’s 6-2 decision overruling the Third Circuit in Jevic narrowing the context in which they can be approved. We now have guidance on whether or not structured dismissals must follow the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme. The short answer is that they must.
A recent decision of the Slovak Courts suggest that if main proceedings have been opened in one member state and the debtor has assets in Slovakia, the insolvency practitioner in the main proceedings must act quickly and sell those assets before secondary proceedings are opened in Slovakia, otherwise he runs the risk of losing the assets to the secondary estate. Legal title to the assets must have passed to the buyer before the secondary proceedings are opened; it is not enough just for contracts to have been exchanged.
The French government has made the assessment that certain small commercial courts were regularly finding themselves confronted with cases of great complexity, only because the company in difficulty had its head office in the jurisdiction of these courts. It therefore announced the establishment of specialised commercial courts (TCS) which will process the most complex insolvency proceedings.
The Macron law of 7 August 2015, named after the current Minister of the Economy, anticipated the establishment of specialised commercial courts which will process the most complex insolvency proceedings. Currently, any of the 134 French commercial courts can be applied to; the choice being mainly the location of the distressed company’s headquarters. This new arrangement aims to improve efficiency and to increase the number of specialised judges (because in France, commercial judges are lay judges). The aim of the reform is to save jobs.
Click here to read this article in French.
It is now possible for creditors and co-contractors of insolvent companies to take certain steps in French insolvency proceedings and make certain statements “online”.
Published in the middle of August, the 2015-1009 decree of 18 August 2015 could easily have gone unnoticed, if it hadn’t been expected for several months by us “technophile” practitioners.
“Aside from their inconsistency with empirical data, proposals to “reform” the Bankruptcy Code must overcome a more basic reality: The current Code works exceedingly well.”
– LSTA Response
A scandal in the world of letters and old manuscripts would not have gone unnoticed and the French case of Aristophil has lead to extensive press coverage; a massive fraud is suspected with thousands of works and hundreds of millions of euros at stake.
One of the primary business restructuring goals is the adjustment of a company’s burdensome obligations. If a business is going to be reorganized, matching a company’s obligations to its value is key to the rehabilitation and “fresh start” concepts that underpin the Bankruptcy Code.