In Budimex SA (C224/18), the CJEU was asked by a Polish Court to determine the time of supply in relation to a construction contract where no invoice was issued in accordance with articles 63 and 66 of the Principal VAT Directive (PVD), which provide that the chargeable event for VAT purposes is when the services are supplied.

The first bank resolution under the new European bank resolution regime is currently taking place in Austria: the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA), the official government regulator for banks, funds and financial institutions, is busy with the resolution of HETA Asset Resolution AG (HETA - formerly Hypo Alpe-Adria Bank International AG).

While a range of outcomes, including a departure under the terms of the current Withdrawal Agreement, remains possible, it is important for businesses to plan for a no-deal Brexit, in which the UK leaves the EU without a withdrawal agreement or other deal. Here we look at the potential impact of a no-deal Brexit on cross-border corporate recovery and insolvency.

Key issues

The European Council Regulation No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings (the Regulation) was adopted in May 2000 and came into force on 31 May 2002 in order to establish a European framework for cross-border insolvency proceedings.

The Regulation regulates: the jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings; recognition and enforcement of judgments for the opening of insolvency proceedings; the laws applicable to insolvency proceedings and their scope of applicability; and cooperation in a cross-border insolvency context.

Immediately following the results of the UK referendum on exiting the EU in June 2016, we wrote about the potential impact of Brexit on cross-border restructuring and insolvency work. As we identified then, the key issue in this area is the potentially significant implications of losing the reciprocal effect of the EU Regulation on insolvency proceedings and the Brussels Regulation (recast). In this article we focus on the impact of the loss of recognition under the Insolvency Regulation.

Proprietary trading. Reuters reported that Latvia, which currently holds the European Union presidency, opposes a proposal that would prohibit European banks from engaging in proprietary trading. (3/31/2015) Proprietary trading. 

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.

PRA consults on capital adequacy. The UK Prudential Regulation Authority proposed changes to the PRA’s Pillar 2 framework for the banking sector, including changes to rules and supervisory statements. The proposed policy is intended to ensure that firms have adequate capital to support the relevant risks in their business and that they have appropriate processes to ensure compliance with the Capital Requirements Regulation and Capital Requirements Directive.

Basel and other regulators seem to regard credit risk as being under control and have identified reputational and IT risks – risk you cannot close off with prudential capital charges – as the sources of the next crisis. Another one being talked about is potential illiquidity for funds, which are buying more illiquid assets in the hunt for yield.

In the Q1 2014 edition of Global Insight, we discussed the progress already made in respect of the Proposed Amendments to the EC Insolvency Regulation as of April 2014. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union have now considered the Commission’s proposed amendments.

In this article we will continue to focus on the progress made regarding: