(BVerfG, Beschluss vom 12.01.2016, Az. 1 BvR 3102/13)
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht hat sich per Beschluss vom 12. Januar 2016 zu der Frage geäußert, ob der Ausschluss juristischer Personen von der Bestellung als Insolvenzverwalter verfassungsgemäß ist oder nicht. Anlass war die Verfassungsbeschwer- de einer auf Insolvenzverwaltung spezialisierten Gesellschaft von Rechtsanwälten, welche zuvor die Aufnahme auf die Vorauswahlliste für Insolvenzverwalter eines Amtsgerichts vergeblich vor den Zivilgerichten zu erstreiten versucht hatte.
(Federal Constitutional Court, judgment dated 12 January 2016, case ref. 1 BvR 3102/13)
Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court has now ruled on whether the exclusion of legal entities from being appointed as insolvency administrator is constitutional or not in its judgment dated 12 January 2016. The ruling was triggered by a constitutional complaint from a firm of lawyers specialising in insolvency administration, which had previously argued in vain before the civil courts for inclusion by a local court on its pre-selected list of insolvency administrators.
The economically significant investment activity by insurance companies is subject to the regulatory requirements of the German Insurance Supervision Act (Versiche rungsaufsichtsgesetz – VAG). With regard to the provisions of the European Solvency II Directive, changes to the requirements for capital investments of insurance companies have resulted from the new VAG which came into effect as of 01 January 2016 (VAG new). This gives us cause to take a look at the most important changes.
A. Former legal situation
Mit seinem Urteil vom 10. Dezember 2015, Az. C-594 / 14, hat der EuGH entschieden, dass die Haftung eines Geschäftsführers für verbotene Aus- zahlungen nach Insolvenzreife nach §64 GmbHG eine insolvenzrechtliche Regelung darstellt und deshalb dem Anwendungsbereich der EuInsVO unterliegt.
In its ruling dated 10 December 2015, case ref. C-594 / 14, the ECJ decided that the liability of a managing director for prohibited payments following insolvency under section 64 of the GmbHG is a provision covered by insolvency law and therefore falls within the scope of application of the EU Insolvency Regulation.
The effect of EU law on UK insolvencies is, as a general rule, limited to cross-border issues. Within the EU, the EC Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings governs all the main jurisdictional and choice of law questions that arise in international insolvencies (with the exception of the insolvencies of banks, insurers and certain investment companies).
Veidojot tiesiskumā balstītu uzņēmējdarbības vidi, Ārvalstu investoru padome Latvijā (ĀIPL) organizēja paneļdiskusiju un augsta līmeņa tikšanos valdībā, turpinot jau ilggadējo sadarbību ar nolūku sekmēt kvalitatīvu investīciju piesaisti.
26. maija paneļdiskusijā biroja vecākais partneris Māris Vainovskis pārstāvēja ĀIPL tiesu sistēmas efektivitātes un investīciju aizsardzības darba grupu par tiesiskuma jautājumiem Latvijā.
2016 is turning out to be a year of significant reform of insurance law. The Insurance Act comes into force on 16 August 2016 and now we know that the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will finally come into force on 1 August 2016, having been updated by the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016.
2016 is turning out to be a year of significant reform of insurance law. The Insurance Act comes into force on 16 August 2016 and now we know that the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Act 2010 will finally come into force on 1 August 2016, having been updated by the Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016.