The U.S. is one of the easiest jurisdictions in the world in which to do business.1 Regulatory barriers are generally low, establishing a branch or business entity is quick and easy, labor and employment laws are much more employer-friendly than in most other developed economies, and the legal system is well-developed and transparent. However, there are certain barriers to entry and challenges to doing business that should be taken into account before investing or establishing operations in the U.S. This publication provides an overview of trade control issues that could limit a non-U.S.
The Recast Insolvency Regulation 2015/848 governs cross-border insolvency proceedings within the European Union. It provides in particular for the opening of the main proceedings by the jurisdiction of the member state where the centre of the debtor’s main interests is located (presumed to be the place of its registered office) and the opening of one or more secondary proceedings in the member states where the debtor possesses an establishment.
On February 27, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a circuit split under the Bankruptcy Code and determined that where funds passed through financial institutions acting as payment conduits, where the ultimate transfer sought to be avoided was not the type of transaction protected by the safe harbor provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, the safe harbor provisions of Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e), shielding transfers through financial institutions from avoidance actions by bankruptcy trustees, was inapplicable.
On September 18, 2017, the iconic US-based retailer Toys “R” Us filed for Chapter 11 in the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in front of Judge Keith L. Phillips. The company filed twenty-five entities, explaining that its $5.3 billion debt obligations and operational issues had led to the need for reorganization.
It has long been a bone of contention for landlords that tenants can simply file a notice of intention to appoint administrators in order to get an automatic moratorium against any enforcement action. This prevents a landlord from forfeiting, suing or exercising CRAR irrespective of whether the tenant goes into administration and, seemingly, whether it ever really had such an intention.
The last two months have seen two key appeals in which the court was required to decide whether the tenant of a particular type of building should enjoy the statutory right to acquire the freehold of a house. This right is enshrined in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967.
The properties, and the questions for the court in each case, were quite different. What the judgments had in common was a purposive approach to interpretation of the Act.
Judge Megarry in Re Rolls Razor Limited1, aptly describes the necessity of insolvency enquiries:
In view of the impending Solvency II Directive (Directive 2009/138/EC), which will be fully applied as of 1 January 2016, and the considerable changes associated with the directive, the (German) insurance landscape will not remain in its current state.
The UK Court of Appeal has swept aside existing rules governing when administrators have to pay advance rents falling due before their appointment.
In what will be seen as a significant victory for landlords, the Court held on 24 February 2014 that it was not open for administrators to enjoy a rent free period simply because they were appointed just after a quarter day. The decision will have major implications for the planning and implementation of corporate insolvencies and looks set to transform the relationship between insolvency practitioners and the property industry.
Last 31 August, the Spanish Council of Ministers passed the Royal Decree-law 24/2012, on restructuring and resolution of credit entities (the "RDL 24/2012") which entered into force on such date immediately following its publication in the Spanish Official Gazette (Boletín Oficial del Estado).