You know, there’s never a dull moment when one reports on the regulatory states’ endless and so often fruitless and wrong-headed tinkering with the global economy. So now… let’s talk bail-in.
The European Court of Justice contradicts the Italian Court of Cassation and Constitutional Court andrules that a partial payment of VAT is possible, provided that an independent expert certifies that there isno better alternative for the Tax Authorities
The case
The guiding forces for a review of EC Regulation No. 1346/2000
The downturn in the economy, which in recent years has severely affected businesses at all levels within the European Union, has pushed many countries to review their internal legal systems on insolvency and restructuring proceedings. Indeed, the demand for adequate rules increases in times of crisis, prompting reforms where existing legislation is incomplete or unable to offer legal instruments capable of responding to changing economic conditions.
The European Court of Justice has held that a director of an English company can be liable for breach of German company law where insolvency proceedings are opened in Germany.
After controversial debates, Law no. 77/2016 on discharge of mortgage- backed debts through transfer of title over immovable property (the "Law on Debt Discharge") was finally published in the Official Gazette on 28 April 2016 and will enter into force on 13 May 2016.
The statistics show that over 10,000 English limited companies operate in Germany. The company is registered in the Companies Register in the UK, but has a branch active in Germany, which is registered in German Company registries. On 10 December 2015 the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) decided on the question whether the liability of the director of English registered Kornhaas Montage und Dienstleistung Ltd (‘KMD’), which was subjected to German insolvency proceedings, should be determined by English law or by German law.
Although the EU Insolvency Regulation and the UNCITRAL Model Law have been with us for some time, decisions involving the court’s recognition of foreign proceedings continue to evolve and will – of necessity – turn on the specific facts of every case. We investigate two recent decisions which came up with very different results.
The background – Re OGX Petroloeo E Gas S.A. [2016] EWHC 25
The past few months have seen some interesting developments in legislative and regulatory requirements in the restructuring and insolvency world. We explore a number of them in this article.
SBEEA – reports on director conduct from 6 April
The Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015 (Commencement No 4), Transitional and Savings Provisions Regulations 2016 (SI 2016/321) were made on 9 March 2016.
Based on a referral by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) the ECJ held that provisions such as § 64 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG) which regulates the personal liability of German GmbH directors in cases of insolvency, can be regarded as an insolvency law rule by virtue of Art. 4 para. 1 European Insolvency Regulation. The provision can therefore be applicable to a UK limited company (having its centre of main interest in Germany) and its director respectively, in accordance with European law: according to Art. 4 para.