Anders als die Insolvenzordnung, sieht die EU-Richtlinie zum vorinsolvenzlichen Sanierungsverfahren keine Einschränkung der Arbeitnehmerrechte vor.

Introduction

The European Association of Certified Turnaround Professionals (EACTP) organized an evening of debate about the proposed new European Directive on business insolvency held in Brussels on May 2nd at the offices of Squire Patton Boggs. Salla Saastamoinen, the European Commission Director of the Civil and Commercial Justice Unit, attended the event called A New European Restructuring Regime in a Changing World and met turnaround professionals from across Europe.

At first glance, it seems that cross-border insolvencies between the UK and EU are likely to become more time-consuming, complex and expensive post-Brexit. However, the situation may not be as dire as it first appears due to the existence of alternative legislation and the exemptions to the EU legislation. As with other areas of law, when it comes to insolvencies much will depend on what steps are taken to maintain the current arrangements with the EU or whether they fall away altogether.

Regulatory capital requirements for prudentially supervised financial services companies across Europe are complex and changing rapidly. To keep track of the regulatory framework in the region, we have brought together the essential features of bank regulation in our EMEA Regulatory Capital wall chart.

As 26 June 2017 approaches – the date of entry into effect of the Recast EU Insolvency Regulation (2015/8484/EU) – we look in detail at the new provisions for co-ordinating the insolvency proceedings of members of a pan-European group of companies and consider whether the new proposals for co-operation will be compulsory, the practicalities of who will pay the co-ordinator’s fees and whether the creditors can have a say in the process.

BACKGROUND

Restructuring an international group of companies in Europe continues to be challenging. While companies can transact business freely across European borders, coordination between the stakeholders involved in a cross-border restructuring has proved to be difficult. The cross-border restructuring of a corporate group is often complicated by a multitude of individual liquidation proceedings spread throughout the various countries in which the group is active.

Het blijft nog even spannend rondom de pre-pack. De pre-pack is een methode waarbij de ondernemer die zijn faillissement ziet aankomen de rechter verzoekt een beoogd curator aan te stellen om te onderzoeken of een doorstart na het faillissement mogelijk is. Rechtbanken oordelen verschillend over de toelaatbaarheid van het toepassen van de pre-packmethode. Het wetsvoorstel Wet Continuïteit Ondernemingen I (‘WCO I’) moet aan deze onzekerheid een einde maken en de pre-pack een wettelijke basis geven.

Introductie

In geval van een faillissement dat gericht is op liquidatie van een onderneming geldt de richtlijn inzake overgang van onderneming niet. Als de onderneming die failliet is gegaan een doorstart maakt, gaan de werknemers dus niet van rechtswege mee over. De rechtbank Midden-Nederland heeft aan het Hof van Justitie gevraagd of de pre-pack kwalificeert als een faillissementsprocedure in de zin van de richtlijn overgang van ondernemingen. De advocaat-generaal beantwoordt die vraag ontkennend in zijn conclusie.

Casus

Pre-pack continues to be a hotly discussed topic. The term refers to when entrepreneurs who expect to go bankrupt request the courts to appoint a receiver to look into the possibility of a restart following bankruptcy. Courts vary as to their standpoint concerning the acceptability of applying the pre-pack method. The purpose of the proposed Continuity of Businesses Act I (WCO I) is to put an end to such uncertainty and to enshrine pre-pack in law.