The European Union Court of Justice ("EUCJ") has issued a judgment dated 10 November 2016 in the Matter No C-156/15 (Private Equity Insurance Group SIA ("SIA") v Swedbank AS) in response to a request for a preliminary ruling from the Supreme Court of Latvia, the country in which the bank Swedbank AS is based.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has given a preliminary ruling on when a security holder has "possession or…control" of financial collateral for the purposes of Directive 2002/47 on financial collateral arrangements. From an English law perspective, this is particularly relevant for anyone considering whether a floating charge over financial collateral qualifies as a security financial collateral arrangement (or SFCA).

Background – UK implementation and interpretation

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has just made a pronouncement on three of the most important matters open to interpretation concerning the regime applicable to financial collateral arrangements under Directive 47/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002.

Brexit is now a reality; what lies ahead for restructuring and insolvency law? These views are limited to English law and do not apply to credit institutions and insurance undertakings, which are subject to their own regimes in the UK and across the EU.

What, when, how? No change in the short term

On Friday 21 October 2011, the Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York handed down an important decision, confirming that foreign (groups of) companies can use Chapter 11 without any significant threshold as to their nexus with the United States. This may be good news for corporates that seek to use Chapter 11 for restructuring their business or capital structure.

It is now clear that even very limited property in the U.S. is sufficient to qualify for a reorganisation through Chapter 11.

In a decision that represents a triumph for bondholders, and should provide comfort to market participants, the Supreme Court of France (the “Supreme Court”) has recognized the trust structure and the parallel debt mechanism as part of security packages put in place for secured international financings granted to a French company.

Until recently, the PPSA did not give second and subsequent ranking secured creditors a statutory right to take possession of collateral in the event of default. The PPSA has recently been changed to allow all secured creditors to exercise this right. The recent case of Glenmorgan v New Zealand Bloodstock [2011] NZCA 672, however, confirms that all secured creditors can also rely on contractual rights to take possession of collateral. Secured creditors should ensure that their security documents clearly give them this right.

Big receiverships often test legal boundaries, and the Crafar group receivership is no exception.  Gibson & Stiassny v StockCo & Ors1  is the longest decision to date on the Personal Property Securities Act 1999 (PPSA). 

Although the facts are complex, the practical take-outs are fairly simple:

It is not uncommon for a receiver, liquidator or competing creditor to be presented with a security agreement, the ink on which appears scarcely to be dry.

If that secured creditor registered on the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR) months or years earlier, does that registration date determine priority between competing security interests?  Or is that unfair to other creditors?

A new Enforcement Law has been introduced in Serbia, a significant portion of which will enter into force on 1 July 2016. One important novelty can be found in its Article 547, which, inter alia, introduces an obligation for certain enforcement creditors to deliver a specific statement to the court within a prescribed window of time, i.e. by 1 July 2016.