Suppose you were a German bank lending to a Spanish debtor under a loan agreement governed by German law. Once your Spanish debtor stops paying, the bank would have to obtain a German legal judgment and would then have to enforce it in Spain. Any measure to secure the debtor's assets in the meantime, is typically subject to the jurisdiction where the asset is located, or subject to lengthy recognition proceedings. Having to resort to local law measures usually puts foreign creditors in a worse-off position than local ones.
In a highly-anticipated decision on a long-running bondholder dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued its judgment last week in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v Education Management Corp. It concluded that “Section 316(b) [of the US Trust Indenture Act 1939] prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms”, i.e. the amount of principal and interest owed and the maturity date.
Following the collapse of Banco Espirito Santo, the Court of Appeal held that a $835m loan had not been transferred to Novo Banco.
This case concerns a Court of Appeal hearing following the 2014 collapse of substantial Portuguese bank Banco Espirito Santo ('BES').
In June 2014, Oak Finance Luxembourg SA ('Oak') entered a facility agreement with BES to lend approximately $835million. The agreement contained English law and jurisdiction clauses.
The Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") has handed down a notable judgment in the case of ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov), ruling that domestic laws governing forfeiture of a claim in insolvency proceedings apply to foreign creditors too
Background
ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov)
The Court of Justice of the European Union ("ECJ") has handed down a notable judgment in the case of ENEFI Energiahatékonysági Nyrt v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Brasov (DGRFP) [2016] All ER (D) 110 (Nov), ruling that domestic laws governing forfeiture of a claim in insolvency proceedings apply to foreign creditors too.
The EU Regulation No 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 established a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”). The Regulation became applicable as of 18 January 2017 within the EU except for the United Kingdom and Denmark .
Who should be interested in this Regulation?
Subject to the reservation in 2 below, anybody who holds money claims against a debtor domiciled in another EU Member State, whether a company or a consumer, provided that no insolvency proceedings are pending with regard to the debtor.
Reverse cross border mergers could become a popular device for UK companies seeking to maintain and preserve “passporting” or other EU rights.
The mechanism of a reverse cross-border merger (in this context whereby a UK parent company merges with their continental European subsidiary) has not historically been permitted under English law. However the provisions of an EU directive implemented in the UK in 2007 changed that position giving UK company groups that option.
Introduction
The uncertainties of the UK’s Brexit negotiations with the remaining 27 EU member states are weighing heavily on the UK economy. The 2 years of negotiations will not even begin until notice is served under Article 50 and the procedure as to how Article 50 can be triggered will be the subject of a Supreme Court decision expected later this month.