According to the European Commission, every year in the EU, 200,000 firms go bankrupt, resulting in over 1.7 million people losing their jobs. Currently, too many viable companies in financial difficulties are steered towards liquidation rather than early restructuring. Also, too few entrepreneurs get a second chance.
Singapore’s Ministry of Law has unveiled significant proposed changes aimed at revising Singapore’s restructuring and insolvency laws and developing Singapore into a regional debt restructuring hub.1
IN BRIEF
Draft legislation unveiled
In Brief
For the first time, a court has adopted the ‘centre of main interest’ (COMI) as grounds at common law to recognise foreign insolvency proceedings.
The decision earlier this year by the High Court of Singapore (the Court) recognised a Japanese bankruptcy trustee appointed to companies incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI):
Major insolvency reform: Getting the (ipso) factos straight
In brief
In brief
On 29 April 2016, the Australian Federal Government (Government) announced three major insolvency law reform proposals in its Improving Bankruptcy and Insolvency Laws Proposal Paper1 (Proposal). The Government has invited submissions from stakeholders and given this is a rare opportunity to undertake substantial reform, we strongly encourage involvement.
The statistics show that over 10,000 English limited companies operate in Germany. The company is registered in the Companies Register in the UK, but has a branch active in Germany, which is registered in German Company registries. On 10 December 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) decided on the question whether the liability of the director of English registered Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd (‘KMD’), which was subjected to German insolvency proceedings, should be determined by English law or by German law.
On April 16, 2015, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) provided guidance on the interpretation of Article 13 of the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (the “Regulation”) in the case Lutz v Bäuerle – C-557/13.
This post addresses the question of how retention of title (“ROT”) provisions are effectively agreed to as part of the contractual relationship between a supplier and its German customer under German law.