Introduction

On 23 June 2016 the UK population voted for the UK's exit from the European Union (EU). The applicable exit procedure and certain possible legal consequences of Brexit for Insolvency & Restructuring will be discussed below in the form of a Q&A.

Even at first blush, it is apparent that arbitration and insolvency make strange bedfellows.

Op 25 januari 2017 hebben de voormalig bestuurders en commissarissen van Meavita een schikking getroffen met de curatoren voor een bedrag van EUR 1,8 miljoen, zonder daarbij aansprakelijkheid te erkennen. De FNV is geen partij bij deze schikking, waardoor de (mede) door de FNV ingestelde enquêteprocedure in beginsel doorloopt. Of de FNV ook doorzet in de enquêteprocedure bij de Ondernemingskamer is nog onduidelijk.

Meavita

Suppose you were a German bank lending to a Spanish debtor under a loan agreement governed by German law. Once your Spanish debtor stops paying, the bank would have to obtain a German legal judgment and would then have to enforce it in Spain. Any measure to secure the debtor's assets in the meantime, is typically subject to the jurisdiction where the asset is located, or subject to lengthy recognition proceedings. Having to resort to local law measures usually puts foreign creditors in a worse-off position than local ones.

Fraudulent debtors are trying to use a disputable interpretation of Article 37, para 4 of the Special Pledges Act on the outcome of enforcement over a special pledge against the rights of secured mortgage creditors.

The Bulgarian legislator is notorious for leaving gaps in enacted legislation. Often such legal gaps combined with inexperience, or even worse – corruption of judges, lead to questionable judgments being handed down. Several of these judgments have put mortgage creditors at risk of losing their collateral in the past year.

In December 2013, the Bank of Slovenia adopted exceptional measures resulting in the annulment of financial instruments held by shareholders and subordinated bondholders for the purpose of burden-sharing in rescuing five Slovenian banks.1 In its decision of 19 July 2016, the European Court of Justice confirmed that such burden-sharing is not contrary to EU law; however, the Slovenian public remains divided.

Since the European Commission adopted the recommendation on restructuring and second chance in 2014, it has been working on the evaluation of its initiative and the introduction of a European legal framework. In 2015 the Capital Markets Union Action Plan included the announcement of a legislative initiative on early restructuring and second chance. Finally, on 22 November 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a European Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks and a second chance for entrepreneurs.

On 26 October 2016, the Court of Justice of the European Union has rendered a decision (case C-195/15) on the interpretation of “rights in rem” under article 5 of the Insolvency Regulation (

Bij besluit van 27 mei 2016 is vastgesteld dat de Wet civielrechtelijk bestuursverbod en de Wet herziening strafbaarstelling faillissementsfraude per 1 juli 2016 in werking zullen treden. Hieronder volgt een behandeling van de relevante aspecten van deze wetten.

The right to set-off claims and obligations in insolvency proceedings is an important tool for creditors in order to protect themselves against the insolvency risk of a contractual counterparty. This article gives a short overview of the rules for set-off in insolvency proceedings in Austria and certain CEE jurisdictions not taking into account special provisions for close-out netting and similar transactions.

Austria

Set-off in insolvency proceedings