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.

Section 447A

JOEL COOK Associate, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group, McCabes

ANDREW LACEY Principal, Litigation and Dispute Resolution Group, McCabes

legal update

ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL

Varying the scope of the Part 5.3A moratorium on proceedings against companies in voluntary administration.

Background

Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) commonly adopt time-based costing for the calculation of their remuneration, primarily on the basis that it ensures that the IP is only remunerated for the work actually undertaken and it ensures that remuneration reflects the simplicity or complexity of particular tasks. Three other ways in which remuneration are common calculated are ‘fixed fee’, ‘percentage’ (such as in respect of recoveries/realisations) and ‘contingency’ bases.

The bar for recovering assets that have been dubiously transferred out of an insolvent company may not be as high as one might think.

Background

On 14 June 2016, in its judgment delivered in Great Investments Ltd v Warner [2016] FCAFC 85, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia confirmed that a benefit transferred from a company without authority can only be retained by the recipient in very limited circumstances.

The issue of how causation can be established has been one significant debate in Australian securities class actions involving alleged breaches of the Corporations Act by corporations. It has been unresolved whether shareholders must prove individual reliance on the contravening conduct of companies, or if the conduct affects the market price of shares purchased and/or sold by shareholders is sufficient.

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

Section 440D imposes a stay on “proceedings in a court” against a company whilst it is in administration under Part 5.3A of the Corporations Act. It is well established that the term “proceedings in a court” does not include an arbitration proceeding: see Larkden Pty Limited v Lloyd Energy Systems Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 1305 at [42] (Hammerschlag J). Notwithstanding this, can the Court use its general power to make orders under s447A to extend the reach of s440D in order to impose a stay on an arbitration against a company in administration?