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
- It is common for the ownership and operation of a hotel to be separated and this should be reflected in a lender's security package.
- In the event of financial distress, a review of the hotel holding and operating structure and security package is essential to identify pre-enforcement and enforcement options available to the lender.
- The practicalities of enforcement need to be considered alongside the legal options, including the position in relation to existing licences and short term funding requirements, as this will inform the strategy for how the a
WHITE PAPER
April 2019
The EU Risk Reduction Package: The Countdown for Restructuring the MREL Base Has Just Begun
With the Brexit deadline fast approaching, the ByrneWallace Brexit team address various issues which will impact upon businesses either trading with or through the UK, or with suppliers in the UK, and/or with UK staff based in Ireland or staff in the UK.
In this issue of our Spotlight on Brexit Series, we address Corporate Governance.
Critical issues for businesses to consider in the event of a no-deal Brexit or where transitional arrangements fail to ensure continuity in the treatment of UK companies as EEA undertakings include:
On 7 February 2019, my article entitled “No deal Brexit – impact on insolvency” was published on Lexology. That article was published shortly after the Insolvency (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (the “2019 Regulations”) were made.
When a company enters a period of financial distress, directors must consider the interests of the company’s creditors and, depending on the extent of the financial distress, may need to prioritise such interests over those of its members. In such distressed situations, the key current heads of liability directors may face (for which they may potentially incur personal liabilities) include wrongful trading, fraudulent trading, misfeasance and breach of duty.
À la recherche du temps perdu (suite) – qu’en dirait La Fontaine ?
Définitivement adoptée le 11 avril dernier, la loi relative à la croissance et la transformation des entreprises, dite « Loi Pacte », a fait l’objet de plusieurs recours en Conseil constitutionnel les 16 et 23 avril. À l’heure où nous rédigeons ces lignes la loi n’est pas encore promulguée. Les dispositions ci-dessous ne sont pas concernées par les recours.
Imagine that a debtor voluntarily concludes a transaction with a third party where he knows (or should know) that it hinders the creditor’s possibilities of collecting the debt. In civil law countries, a creditor can invoke the nullification of that legal act by means of a so-called actio pauliana. This raises the question of which court has jurisdiction in the case of an international dispute, regarding an actio pauliana, that is instituted by a creditor against a third party?
Brexit insolvency issues for trustees of pension schemes with overseas sponsors
You might remember that before 2016, in the world before the EU referendum (which did exist!), it was effectively not possible for the insolvency of an overseas sponsor of a UK pension scheme to trigger entry into the PPF unless the overseas sponsor had a branch or office (an “establishment”) in the UK (for legal geeks you might remember this was the issue discussed in the Olympic Airlines case which was heard by the Supreme Court in 2015).