Suchergebnisse

Intensive process of Europeanization and the creation of internal market significantly changed European business landscape. More and more European companies are spreading their businesses across Europe what consequently raised considerable number of issues to address, such as, law applicable to corporate activities, creditor's rights, etc. The problem is particularly complex and complicated in case of companies' bankruptcy. In "massive" bankruptcy cases with cross border elements, involving large number of creditors, companies assets in several member states, large number of employees etc., it is hard or impossible to coordinate all activities, to ensure equal treatment and equal rights to all creditors, prevent forum shopping or/and to trace, collect and sell debtor's assets. Having in mind all that and the fact that conflicting Member States insolvency rules create uncertainty among investors, discourages cross-border investments and cause delay in restructuring, EU is taking steps in harmonizing insolvency law since early 1980's. However, the first EU Insolvency Regulation was not enacted until year 2002. The 2002 EU Insolvency Regulation sets forth a framework for cross border insolvency within the EU, especially providing rules for the international jurisdiction of a court in a Member State for opening of insolvency proceedings, the automatic recognition of these proceedings and the power of "liquidator" in the other Member State, and important choice of law provisions. After 10 years of application of 2002 Insolvency Regulation, in year 2012, the EU Commission decided that it is time to modernize EU insolvency law. As a result it came out with the proposal of the Recast Insolvency Regulation. Recast Insolvency Regulation was finally adopted by the EU Parliament and Council in June 2015 but it will enter into force in year 2017. The new Recast Insolvency Regulation does not adopt radically different approach compared to previous Regulation not it offers revolutionary different solutions. The fundamental premise that insolvency law is a matter for each EU member state has remained. However the Recast regulation strengthens and broadens the framework of recognition and co-operation which the 2002 Insolvency regulation set up over a decade ago. In that context, paper will address processes of harmonization of EU insolvency law. It will emphasize the most important aspects of EU insolvency regime. Special attention will be given to substantive and procedural issues as regulated in the Recast Insolvency Regulation.

The Master's Thesis is devoted to the analysis of the problematic issue regarding the legal uncertainty within the EU in respect of the applicable national substantive law on the duties and liabilities of companies' directors in insolvency proceedings that involve a cross-border element. The comparative analysis of the national company and insolvency legislation of various EU Member-states is given. The main focus of the Thesis is on the existing case law on the issue at hand of the Court of Justice of the European Union, mainly the Kornhaas v Dithmar case and the Recast of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings and the effectiveness of the mentioned case law and the normative act in solving the problem of the legal uncertainty at hand.

The Master's Thesis is devoted to the analysis of the problematic issue regarding the legal uncertainty within the EU in respect of the applicable national substantive law on the duties and liabilities of companies' directors in insolvency proceedings that involve a cross-border element. The comparative analysis of the national company and insolvency legislation of various EU Member-states is given. The main focus of the Thesis is on the existing case law on the issue at hand of the Court of Justice of the European Union, mainly the Kornhaas v Dithmar case and the Recast of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency Proceedings and the effectiveness of the mentioned case law and the normative act in solving the problem of the legal uncertainty at hand.

The purpose of this article is to critically revisit the European Insolvency Regulation on the occasion of its recasting, in Regulation (EU) 2015/848, which enters into force, for the most part, in June 2017. The article first considers the circumstances underlying the Regulation's adoption, highlighting the fact that a new approach to business failure has been an indispensable part of the EU's response to the financial crisis, thus placing business rescue on the agenda. An endeavour to examine provisions purportedly targeted at creating a business rescue-friendly culture follows, including an attempt at an early appraisal of whether this objective will be achieved by these amendments. The Regulation is found to be a praiseworthy effort in upgrading the cross-border insolvency regime given the limited time frame and the fragility of the political status quo. Nonetheless, the Commission missed the opportunity to embark upon the quest of harmonisation to fully establish a rescue culture, despite the prevailing need to do so. For the time being the Regulation, being the culmination of complex review and sensitive compromise, remains a conflict of laws and jurisdiction Regulation.

This second edition expands upon what has become a widely cited work on the recast EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings. It incorporates important developments in the case law since the Regulation was recast in 2015, as well as other significant updates. As with the first edition, it provides a detailed article-by-article commentary on the Regulation, written by a group of expert scholars and practitioners from a range of European jurisdictions. Drawing on a rich body of CJEU and national case law, as well as scholarly developments, analysis of the Regulation is accompanied by a chapter explaining the background to the Regulation's enactment and recasting, identifying its key features, and examining the relationship between the Regulation and new European Restructuring Directive.

Purpose–The purpose of this article is to analyze the impact of the new recast Law on Insolvency of Legal Persons of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter –Law on Insolvency) on cross border litigation by national insolvency practitioners. Jurisdiction of claims filed by insolvency practitioners is a delicate matter, often giving rise to disputes whether the courts' jurisdiction should be based on Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereafter –Brussels Ibis regulation) or Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 20 2015 on insolvency proceedings (hereafter –Insolvency Regulation). In insolvency related matters, national regulation and its implementation are very important for demarcation between Insolvency Regulation and Brussels Ibis regulation. Thus, this article will provide some insights on whether the new recast Law on Insolvency addressed the issues insolvency practitioners continue to face when suing persons domiciled in another member state.

CC BY-NC 4.0 ; Purpose – The purpose of this article is to analyze the impact of the new recast Law on Insolvency of Legal Persons of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter – Law on Insolvency) on cross border litigation by national insolvency practitioners. Jurisdiction of claims filed by insolvency practitioners is a delicate matter, often giving rise to disputes whether the courts' jurisdiction should be based on Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of December 12 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (hereafter – Brussels Ibis regulation) or Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of May 20 2015 on insolvency proceedings (hereafter – Insolvency Regulation). In insolvency related matters, national regulation and its implementation are very important for demarcation between Insolvency Regulation and Brussels Ibis regulation. Thus, this article will provide some insights on whether the new recast Law on Insolvency addressed the issues insolvency practitioners continue to face when suing persons domiciled in another member state.

The Brussels I Regulation has undergone a lengthy review process, resulting in Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, of 12 December 2012, on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (recast), the provisions of which apply from 10 January 2015. This work, written by a number of leading experts, provides a a concise article-by-article commentary on all the recast Regulation's provisions with reference to the existing case law of the European Court of Justice and leading national decisions. It also offers additional focus on the newly introduced changes, in particular to the provisions on lis pendens and the recognition and enforcement of judgements.

Chapter 1. Insolvency Forum Shopping, Revisited -- Chapter 2. Contracting around insolvency jurisdiction: private ordering in European insolvency jurisdiction rules and practices -- Chapter 3. Jurisdictional rules on approval requirements in the European Insolvency Regulation Recast -- Chapter 4. The law applicable to the transaction avoidance in cross-border insolvency proceedings -- Chapter 5. Cooperation and Communication between Parties in the Management of Cross-Border Parallel Proceedings under the European Insolvency Regulation Recast.