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 European Commission has reached agreement to update the current insolvency regulation known as Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 dated May 29, 2000 on insolvency proceedings.  The goal of the new Regulation is to rescue companies in distress. The proposed insolvency Regulation will change the member states’ insolvency proceedings with respect to both personal and corporate insolvencies and will include modified restructuring options that may not always result in a formal insolvency proceeding and liquidation.

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.

In Europe each year there are an estimated 200,000 corporate insolvencies. More than half of the companies set up do not survive their first five years of trading and more than 1.7 million jobs are lost every year as a result. One in five of those companies will have international operations that cross national borders.

The European Union (EU) has sought to introduce an element of harmonization across its Member States, to facilitate the effective operation of cross-border insolvencies.

On 28 June 2010 a motion was passed by the European Parliamentary Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs requesting that the European Parliament pass a resolution enabling the European Commission to prepare draft legislation on cross-border crisis management in the financial sector. The proposed framework would encompass amongst other things:  

On 13 November 2009, the Commission approved a restructuring plan for ING Groep NV under the EC State aid rules. ING is a Dutch financial institution, offering its services in over 40 countries. In October 2008, the Commission approved the liquidity guarantees of €12 billion offered by the Dutch government to support ING during the economic crisis.

In a judgment given on 25 January, the European Court of Justice has ruled in case C278-05 - Robins and Others v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (2007) that the UK Government failed adequately to implement a European Insolvency Directive dating back to the 1980’s, which was designed to safeguard pension scheme members’ benefits in the event that their employers became insolvent. However, the ECJ also went on to rule that the United Kingdom Government need not necessarily fund the lost pension rights in full or in part.

This quick guide summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in France are subject to, and how those duties change when the company is insolvent or at risk of being insolvent. 

This quick guide summarises the duties that directors of companies incorporated in France are subject to, and how those duties change when the company is insolvent or at risk of being insolvent.

It also gives an overview of the personal risk to directors when the company is in financial difficulty.

TA Montreuil 18-1-2018 n°1701374

Le tribunal administratif de Montreuil apporte des précisions dans le cadre des opérations de dissolution sans liquidation.

D’une part, il étend la solution rendue en matière de fusions aux transmissions universelles de patrimoine en jugeant que les charges et les dettes nées chez l’absorbée avant la fusion sont prise en compte pour le calcul de la rémunération des apports et doivent donc être considérées comme un élément du prix d’acquisition et non comme une charge se rapportant à la gestion de l’absorbante.