Bank structural reform: too big to fail, too big to save and too complex to manage, supervise and resolve? 1.1 The case for bank structural reform Bank structural reform is the result of a global financial crisis which developed in the summer of 2007 and became obvious in the EU in the latter part of 2008. The EU Member States that share an economic and monetary union (‘the Eurozone’) began to appear particularly vulnerable: the Greek sovereign debt crisis became apparent in early 2010 and serious economic problems emerged in Ireland, Portugal, Italy and Spain.

The European Commission has published the VAT gap report for 2013 for 26 member states (Cyprus and Croatia are not included). The VAT gap is an estimate of VAT lost due to fraud and evasion, avoidance, bankruptcies/insolvencies and miscalculations. According to the report, VAT revenue collection in 2013 failed to show significant improvement across member states compared with 2012.

The European Commission has reached agreement to update the current insolvency regulation known as Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 dated May 29, 2000 on insolvency proceedings.  The goal of the new Regulation is to rescue companies in distress. The proposed insolvency Regulation will change the member states’ insolvency proceedings with respect to both personal and corporate insolvencies and will include modified restructuring options that may not always result in a formal insolvency proceeding and liquidation.

The Official Journal of the European Union of July 31, 2014, published the European Commission Guidelines establishing the conditions under which state aid for rescuing and restructuring non-financial undertakings in difficulty can be considered compatible with the domestic market. The Commission has been applying these Guidelines since August

On 15 April 2014 the European Parliament voted in favour of the European Commission initiative for a Regulation establishing a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) to simplify EU cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters. This legislation aims to establish a procedure whereby the courts of EU member states can issue orders preserving or “freezing” bank accounts across the EU without the need for any intervention by the courts of any other member state.

A lingering misperception among American businesspersons and some commercial lawyers is that it is a fool’s errand to commence an insolvency case seeking reorganization in a European nation because those national laws prescribe liquidation rather than rehabilitation. These business leaders often dismiss out-of-hand insolvency relief on the continent for a troubled European subsidiary and elect to wind up the company’s affairs outside the judicial system.

The European Commission recently published a recommendation addressed to Member States on a new approach to rescuing businesses and offering a second chance to honest entrepreneurs. It aims to ensure that viable businesses experiencing financial difficulti es have access to restructuring mechanisms at an early stage to prevent insolvency and maximise overall value for creditors, employees and owners. It also proposes a second chance for honest entrepreneurs involved in insolvency proceedings.

The financial crisis has made it clear that some EU Member States grant state aid more readily than others. Sarkozy has put millions of Euros towards the Peugeot rescue effort; Berlusconi has helped to ensure that Alitalia remains in Italian hands.

In Europe each year there are an estimated 200,000 corporate insolvencies. More than half of the companies set up do not survive their first five years of trading and more than 1.7 million jobs are lost every year as a result. One in five of those companies will have international operations that cross national borders.

The European Union (EU) has sought to introduce an element of harmonization across its Member States, to facilitate the effective operation of cross-border insolvencies.

We take a look at the reforms to the EC Insolvency Regulation in light of the European Parliament’s 4 February vote on the committee of legal affairs’ report on the proposed reforms.

The background