As Parliament debates the draft Withdrawal Agreement prior to the vote on 11 December, this week's Q&A looks beyond the headlines at the potential impact of the proposed Brexit deal on a number of specific topics, including what the Political Declaration tells us about the shape of the future EU/UK trade agreement:

Alternative Investment Funds

As we send this final edition of Global Insight for 2018, Rick and I would like to thank you for your continued support of our multi-award-winning Global Restructuring Group. Undeterred by a back-drop of trade tariffs and Brexit, governments and professionals around the world have continued to try to develop laws and protocols to facilitate the best possible recoveries for creditors from cross-border financial distress. Since the dramatic events of 2008, jurisdictions have sought to bolster their insolvency laws, and many, to supplement them with pre-insolvency restructuring options.

On 18 December 2018 the English Court of Appeal held in the case of OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan that the rule in Gibbs is still a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law and not to be sidestepped by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations.

Facts

The facts in summary are these:

In a decision widely anticipated by investors in emerging market and distressed debt, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to refuse to grant an indefinite moratorium on claims under certain English law debts under the Cross Border Insolvency Rules (“CBIR”). In doing so, the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of English common law that provides important protection to creditors; known as the Rule in Gibbs, the rule provides that a debt may only be discharged according to its own governing law.

Are CVAs on the rise?

News of famous high street names, particularly in retail, and the restaurant sector entering into CVAs is commonplace. Government Insolvency Service figures record 102 CVAs in the first quarter of 2018, an increase of 18%. Whilst the retail sector is undoubtedly feeling the pinch, CVAs are potentially open to any company. The impact on the owners of property occupied by such businesses, can be significant and highly prejudicial.

What exactly are CVAs?

1. El supuesto de hecho 

Una sociedad eslovaca productora de bebidas alcohólicas, que había conseguido un aplazamiento de su deuda fiscal previa constitución de garantías, no pudo hacer frente a los pagos pactados y, en consecuencia, presentó la solicitud de iniciación de un procedimiento de convenio de acreedores ante el tribunal regional competente, proponiendo el pago del 35 % de la deuda, que ascendía a un total de 21,4 millones de euros, de los cuales 21,3 correspondían a la deuda fiscal.

English law restructuring and insolvency tools are used to implement financial restructurings and the external administration of foreign companies. The attractiveness of the English tools and legal system is highlighted by the prevalence of companies incorporated abroad, especially companies incorporated in the EU, which avail themselves of those tools. English law in this area is impacted by much European law.

The Recast Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 governs cross-border insolvency proceedings within the European Union. It provides in particular for the opening of the main proceedings by the jurisdiction of the member state where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is located (presumed to be the place of its registered office) and the opening of one or more secondary proceedings in the member states where the debtor possesses an establishment.

Todos los supuestos de extinción en que ésta es adoptada por voluntad del trabajador, pero derivada de una decisión unilateral de la empresa, han de tener el mismo tratamiento por parte de los Estados miembros. Así lo señala el Tribunal de de Justicia en un reciente pronunciamiento en el que resuelve una cuestión cuya trascendencia práctica desborda el supuesto planteado específicamente.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.

Background to the case