The Supreme Court (unanimously dismissing the appeal in Trustees of Olympic Airlines SA Pension &Life Assurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA) has held that “economic activity” is central to the definition of “establishment” in the Insolvency Regulation¹.

The European Court of Justice (Judgment of 4 September 2014, C-327/13), held that in accordance to the ECRegulation No. 1346/2000, a secondary insolvency proceeding in the Member State where the debtor has its registeredoffice – which does not coincide with the centre of its main interest (COMI) – may be opened at the request of creditorsentitled under the law of that State.

The case

Key Point

The ECJ has outlined how the protection afforded to a counterparty by Article 13 of the European Insolvency regulation works where an insolvency officeholder challenges a transaction governed by a law different from the one which applies to the insolvency of the estate generally.

Facts

This article provides snapshot of some of the more incidental goings-on of which we believe practitioners should be aware. Amongst other things, it covers developments in the reform of the EC Regulation, the consultation on the new-look SIP 16, and the Comet decision on the extent of the court’s S.236 powers.

EU Council adopts agreement on EC Insolvency Regulation reforms

First in the lineup, the Council of the EU agreed a compromise agreement with the EU Parliament on the proposed amendments to the EC Insolvency Regulation (Reg EC 1346/2000).

Creditors frustrated by cost and time delays in cross border disputes, as well as from unscrupulous delaying tactics by debtors, will have some comfort in the form of the revised EU Judgments Regulation. The revised Regulation came into force on 10 January 2015 and aims to resolve cross-border legal disputes more easily, bringing huge cost savings to creditors.

The European Advocate General has today given his opinion in the “Woolworths case” (and two other cases) on the meaning of “establishment” for the purposes of determining when the duty to consult appropriate representatives is triggered under the European Collective Redundancies Directive (the Directive).

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has made a referral to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) concerning the question of whether a director of an English limited company which predominantly operated its business in Germany and over the assets of which insolvency proceedings have been opened in Germany, pursuant to Art 3 para 1 European Insolvency Regulation, can, like the director of a German GmbH, be held liable for forbidden payments pursuant to German corporate law or insolvency law.

The recent judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Plaza BV –v- The Law Debenture Trust Corporation¹  illustrates and extends a line of authorities in which the English courts have sought to narrow the scope of the mandatory application of Article 2 of the Brussels Regulation 44/2001.  These cases are a reaction to the broad interpretation of the applicability and effect of Article 2 set out in the ECJ's decision in Owusu –v- Jackson² , and attempt to confine the influence of that decision. 

In the latest decision on COMI (Northsea Base Investment Limited & ors [2015] EWHC 121 (Ch)), the English Court had to determine the centre of main interest for a  group of companies registered in Cyprus, but where the operations of the companies were managed by a shipping agent in London.

On 27 July 2014, the Regulation (UE) n.º 655/2014, of the European Parliament and of  the Council (the “Regulation”), establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters was  published.