The European Court of Justice (Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-327/13), held that in accordance to the ECRegulation No. 1346/2000, a secondary insolvency proceeding in the Member State where the debtor has its registeredoffice – which does not coincide with the centre of its main interest (COMI) – may be opened at the request of creditorsentitled under the law of that State.
The case
Tomorrow the UK voting public goes to the polls to select the next government but do the Great British Public realise the effect of their decisions for Cross Border Restructurings and Business Reorganisation across the EU?
Key Point
The ECJ has outlined how the protection afforded to a counterparty by Article 13 of the European Insolvency regulation works where an insolvency officeholder challenges a transaction governed by a law different from the one which applies to the insolvency of the estate generally.
Facts
The Supreme Court has held that, in order to open secondary proceedings in England under EC Regulation 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings, the company’s “establishment” within the jurisdiction must be a fixed place of business that is involved in a business activity that consists of dealings with third parties: The T
As reported in our briefing last week, the European Court of Justice has delivered its judgment in the case of Union of Shop, Distributive & Allied Workers (USDAW) and another v WW Realisation 1 Ltd (in liquidation) and others (C–80/14) in relation to long running claims brought by former employees of national retailers Woolworths and Ethel Austin, which arose out of the administration and closure of all of their retail stores. The ECJ had to consider the meaning of “establishment” in the legislation, which triggers an obligation to undertake collective consultation when an employe
The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation1 illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001. These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson2 , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision.
The legislative process regarding the proposal of the Parliament and of the Council to amend the Regulation (whichwould introduce various changes as proposed by the Commission in order to address issues arisen in the enforcementof the Regulation) is approaching its conclusion
Introduction
This quarter has seen a wave of legislative and regulatory reform on the way. We review some of the more significant developments.
Insolvency exemption to the Jackson reforms extended indefinitely
In the latest decision on COMI (Northsea Base Investment Limited & ors [2015] EWHC 121 (Ch)), the English Court had to determine the centre of main interest for a group of companies registered in Cyprus, but where the operations of the companies were managed by a shipping agent in London.
What might be the funding risk?
A member state exit is likely to result in increased liquidity problems and less available funding as financial institutions manage their exposure to the Eurozone. Businesses may find that traditional sources of finance (loans, bonds etc) are less easy to obtain or raise.
Intra group funding may also be problematic if there are intra-company loans to subsidiaries located in risk member states and those subsidiaries are having difficulty meeting their payment obligations under such loans.