You will be pleased, I hope, to hear that in this blog I shall largely be steering the referendum itself a wide berth; this is not because the prospect of Brexit would not impact greatly on insolvency law and practice (it undoubtedly would) but because I have already blogged on that topic in March and issued press releases on it in so far as it affects business decision making under the R3 banner, but mainly

This blogpost was first published as an edited article in Business Magazine’s June 2016 edition (available here).

Directors at risk in the twilight zone

Before I hazard any kind of answer to the above, let me first declare my interest in the #Brexit / #Bremain debate, from the perspective of an insolvency lawyer.

So-called “Creditor Portals”, and other similarly titled electronic platforms by which insolvency practitioners typically circulate any meaningful information to creditors about insolvent estates, have been a bugbear of mine ever since they were first used a little while ago. Don’t get me wrong; I absolutely applaud the attempt which they represent to minimise the amount of unnecessary paperwork circulating around the country and the savings of cost which they bring to the administration of insolvent estates where the cost of copying and posting alone would be absolutely frightening today.

Het aantal faillissementen in Nederland neemt af, maar de retail branche is er deze zomer toch niet zonder kleerscheuren vanaf gekomen: MS Mode, Sluiterij Mitra, Scheer & Foppen en McGregor zijn recent nog failliet verklaard. Bij dergelijke faillissementen zal door de curator altijd gekeken worden naar de (on)mogelijkheid van een doorstart. Een geïnteresserde koper met een goed bod is echter niet genoeg. Om een doorstart van een winkelketen te laten slagen, is vaak van belang dat de (goedlopende) locaties overgenomen kunnen worden.

In a written statement this morning from Lord Faulks QC, Minister of State for Civil Justice, the government has announced that, from April 2016, insolvency litigation will no longer be exempt from what have been abbreviated to “the LASPO reforms”.

Regular readers of my blogs over the years will know that I never pass up a chance to use a musical analogy for business problems. As an insolvency lawyer with a second calling treading the boards, my legal practice and my music frequently vie for my attention: never more so than during the Christmas season.

According to the Court of Appeal, instead of entirely putting an end to bankruptcy operations, the decision to close the bankruptcy case only "suspends the bankruptcy process", while restoring  individual rights to creditors. The appeal judges further indicated that "the bankruptcy regime stops existing, but the debtor remains under the threat of the re-opening of bankruptcy operations, which virtually survive".

Today, 26 November 2015, the Act implementing the European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Banks and Investment Firms (the “Implementation Act”) has entered into force. The purpose of the Implementation Act is to implement the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") into Netherlands law and to facilitate the application of the Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation").

La Cour d'appel de Luxembourg décide que le jugement de clôture de faillite pour insuffisance d'actifs ne met pas un terme aux opérations de faillite, mais en suspend les opérations.

La survie d'une société au terme des opérations de faillite diffère selon l'actif récupéré par le curateur.

Les sociétés commerciales dont les opérations sont clôturées pour insuffisance d'actif restent inscrites au registre de commerce.