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

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.

On 18 January 2017, Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 (the "Regulation") will become fully applicable. It will henceforth be possible to obtain in any EU Member State, with the exception of Denmark and the United Kingdom, a preservation order for bank accounts of a debtor situated in another Member State.

The Regulation introduces at the European level a certain degree of transparency in terms of the debtor's assets.

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.

Earlier intervention in case of distress to preserve value and save jobs. That is the goal of the proposed 'EU Business Restructuring Directive', which was presented yesterday by the European Commission and aims to ensure a minimum harmonization of restructuring procedures within the European Union.

Under the Act of August 10 2016 modernising the Company Law 1915 (which entered into force on August 23 2016) Luxembourg law now officially recognises that companies can be wound up by means of a simplified procedure. This is an unquestionably useful tool which will further enhance Luxembourg's business-friendly reputation.

Thanks to the Act of 10 August 2016 modernizing Luxembourg company law, which entered into force on 23 August 2016 (the “New Act”), the Grand Duchy now officially recognizes the possibility for companies to be wound up by means of a simplified procedure. This is unquestionably a useful tool which will further enhance Luxembourg's business-friendly reputation.

Op 13 juli 2016 zijn de consultatieversies van het wetsvoorstel Wet herstel en afwikkeling van verzekeraars (het "Consultatie Wetsvoorstel") en bijbehorende memorie van toelichting ("MvT') gepubliceerd. De consultatieperiode is op 28 augustus 2016 gesloten. Met het Consultatie Wetsvoorstel beoogt de minister het wettelijk kader voor herstel en afwikkeling van verzekeraars te versterken.