Issues will arise upon a UK exit in relation to restructuring tools such as schemes of arrangement and in relation to insolvency processes; there are also special EU insolvency rules for financial institutions which will be affected. Finally there are elements of EU financial services laws which impinge on insolvencies and remove uncertainties, such as settlement finality and financial collateral.
The recent case of Thomas & another v Frogmore Real Estate Partners & others [2017] EWHC 25 (Ch) provides useful guidance for anyone analyzing the centre of main interests (“COMI”) of a company not registered in the UK or other EEA state for the purposes of assessing whether or not insolvency proceedings relating to the company can be instigated in the UK courts under the EC Regulation.
If 2016 ended with more questions than answers as to how Brexit would take shape, 2017 began with at least a little more clarity.
Background
The EU-Commission is planning a European wide pre-insolvency (preventive) restructuring procedure in order to harmonise pre-insolvency proceedings within the EU, thus strengthening the EU domestic and capital markets, bringing clarity to cross-border transactions, and preventing forum-shopping.
At the end of 2016, the European Parliament issued a proposed directive (COM (2016)723/30/EU) in this regard (Directive Proposal).
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.