Key Points:
You can lead a director to the safe harbour, but you can't make him drink.
The Government's new approach to insolvency is long on rhetoric about risk taking and the need to remove the stigma of business failure.
However, it is short on detailed consideration of exactly why we have legal rules for corporate and personal insolvency.
Those rules aim to balance the interests of creditors against the need to encourage business start-ups.
The Australian Government has accepted certain recommendations of the Productivity Commission's long-awaited Report on Business Set-up, Transfer and Closure, in an attempt to change the focus of Australia's insolvency laws from "penalising and stigmatising business failure”, according to the Minister for Small Business and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon Kelly O'Dwyer MP.
It has expressed a willingness to legislate to introduce at least two main changes:
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").
Key Points:
It's unclear that safe harbours by themselves will provide genuine opportunities for restructuring distressed businesses.
The Productivity Commission's upcoming report on corporate insolvency will address two burning issues: ipso facto clauses and how to encourage directors to save financially-stressed companies.
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.
Legislation implementing the EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive ("BRRD") in Netherlands law and facilitating the application of the EU Single Resolution Mechanism Regulation ("SRM Regulation") was approved by the Upper Chamber of the Netherlands parliament on 10 November 2015 and is expected to enter into force before the end of this year. The new law – the "European Framework for the Recovery and Resolution of Credit Institutions and Investment Firms Implementation Act" – will be referred to below as the "Implementation Act".
The number of companies declared bankrupt in Luxembourg has increased tremendously since 2009, reaching a record number of 1,026 in 2012. According to the Luxembourg authorities, this situation is mainly due to the current legislation, which is obsolete and no longer suited to modern financial difficulties.
In 2009, the Luxembourg government decided that the creation of appropriate tools for companies in financial distress was extremely important, especially in the post-crisis period, and decided to tackle this subject.
There's been a drop-off, but Peter Bowden says things might be about to change.
Click here to watch video.