Certainty is a key element in any business planning. For corporate restructuring practitioners who are planning or working on cross border transactions, the uncertainty relating to Brexit and the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union ("EU") may have long-term significant consequences and a "no-deal" Brexit (without a withdrawal agreement and the certainty of a transition period) will have immediate and significant consequences for any such cross-border transaction.
Certainty is a key element in any business planning. For corporate restructuring practitioners who are planning or working on cross border transactions, the uncertainty relating to Brexit and the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”) may have long-term significant consequences and a “no-deal” Brexit (without a withdrawal agreement and the certainty of a transition period) will have immediate and significant consequences for any such cross-border transaction.
Although they disagree about the severity, economists and market watchers generally agree that the U.S. economy is headed for a slow-down. According to data from the Federal Reserve Bank in St. Louis, industrial production and retail sales are at all-time highs, exceeding levels seen before the 2008 recession. Unemployment rates are at the lowest levels since November 2000. So why the gloomy predictions for 2019 and beyond? Historically, retail sales, industrial production and employment are at their peaks right before a recession.
Are CVAs on the rise?
News of famous high street names, particularly in retail, and the restaurant sector entering into CVAs is commonplace. Government Insolvency Service figures record 102 CVAs in the first quarter of 2018, an increase of 18%. Whilst the retail sector is undoubtedly feeling the pinch, CVAs are potentially open to any company. The impact on the owners of property occupied by such businesses, can be significant and highly prejudicial.
What exactly are CVAs?
Introduction
As Parliament debates the draft Withdrawal Agreement prior to the vote on 11 December, this week's Q&A looks beyond the headlines at the potential impact of the proposed Brexit deal on a number of specific topics, including what the Political Declaration tells us about the shape of the future EU/UK trade agreement:
Alternative Investment Funds
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.
On 18 December 2018 the English Court of Appeal held in the case of OJSC International Bank of Azerbaijan that the rule in Gibbs is still a fundamental tenet of English insolvency law and not to be sidestepped by the Cross-Border Insolvency Regulations.
Facts
The facts in summary are these:
In a decision widely anticipated by investors in emerging market and distressed debt, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the High Court to refuse to grant an indefinite moratorium on claims under certain English law debts under the Cross Border Insolvency Rules (“CBIR”). In doing so, the Court of Appeal has reaffirmed a long-standing principle of English common law that provides important protection to creditors; known as the Rule in Gibbs, the rule provides that a debt may only be discharged according to its own governing law.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has ruled today that the Pension Protection Fund regime does not satisfy European law requirements. The judgment is likely to have a significant impact on the PPF, and could have wider knock-on effects for many occupational pension schemes.
Background to the case