On the 12 December, the European Commission announced the proposal to update Council Regulation 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings. They also announce a separate initiative whereby it will be highlighting the differences between national laws that have the greatest potential to hamper an efficient insolvency legal framework across the EU.
This Q&A focuses on the need to modernise the EU Insolvency Regulation to facilitate the restructuring of businesses in financial difficulty.
Questions include: why do the current rules need updating, what is the impact of the insolvency rules on the economy, how many businesses are affected and what are the next steps?
On 26 December last, the Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was signed into law by the President.
The various provisions of the Act will come into force through commencement orders which will be made by the Minister for Justice. It is expected that certain sections of the Act relating to its Establishment Day and related provisions, will be commenced shortly.
The remaining provisions will then come into operation on a phased basis under Section 1(2) of the Act, as designated by orders to be made by the Minister.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration announced a proposed rule that would expand its Abandoned Plan Program to include individual account plans, including 401(k) plans, of companies in Chapter 7 bankruptcy (a “Chapter 7 Plan”). Under the current rule, only large financial institutions and other asset custodians can serve as administrators of abandoned plans, and a plan is considered abandoned only after no contributions or distributions have been made for at least 12 months.
The Personal Insolvency Bill has now passed through the Dail and will commence in the Seanad. The Minister for Justice has commented that the intention is still to have the Bill enacted by Christmas.
On November 28, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit published an opinion affirming the bankruptcy court’s ruling that the Mexican Plan of Reorganization (the “Concurso Plan”) of the Mexican glass-manufacturing company, Vitro, S.A.B.
Under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) section 436, unless a defined benefit pension plan sponsored by a debtor in bankruptcy is fully funded, the plan may not make “prohibited payments” (i.e., lump sum payments or payments in any other form that exceed the monthly amount under a single life annuity). Moreover, the anti-cutback rule in Code section 411(d)(6) prohibits a plan from being amended to eliminate an optional form of benefit.
The Department of Labor (“DOL”) sued the president of several related companies to establish his personal liability for more than $67,000 in employee contributions never remitted to the employer sponsored benefit plans and to prevent him from discharging this liability in his pending personal bankruptcy action. Over a nearly three-year period, the companies withheld but never remitted the employee contributions to the companies’ group health and 401(k) plans (the “Plans”).
A federal court recently held that two investment funds are not jointly and severally liable for a bankrupt portfolio company’s withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan disagreeing with a 2007 opinion by the Appeals Board of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (the “PBGC”). The Massachusetts U.S. District Court ruled there was no liability because the investment funds are not “trades or businesses” for purposes of ERISA’s joint and several liability rules.
On 4 July 2012, the Minister for Finance, Mr Michael Noonan, launched a public consultation on the tax implications of appointing a receiver. The consultation paper was jointly issued by the Department of Finance and the Revenue Commissioners and invited input by 4 September 2012 from interested parties in relation to technical and practical tax implications concerning the appointment of receivers.