New EU rules on company law: more flexibility, more protection?

Company Law package may have large impact on cross-border mobility of EU companies

Yesterday, the European Commission launched two proposals for new rules on the cross-border mobility and digital registration of companies. The rules are intended to make it easier for companies to merge, divide or move within the European Union, as well as to prevent social dumping, tax evasion and other forms of abuse.

Continue reading “New EU rules on company law: more flexibility, more protection?”

Superconfex-arrest: Cassatie bevestigt principes over draagwijdte van ‘lex concursus’ en individuele schade bij oplichting

Cassatie 4 april 2017 (“Superconfex”)

In een arrest van 4 april 2017 (P.16.0484) inzake het faillissement van de bekende textielketen “Superconfex”, diende het Hof van Cassatie zich te buigen over enkele vragen die zich situeren in het domein van het (Europese) insolventierecht en het strafrecht. We focussen daarbij op de voornaamste juridische knopen die het Hof moest doorhakken: het toepassingsgebied van de lex concursus en de aanwezigheid van individuele schade in hoofde van een schuldeiser die slachtoffer was van oplichting. Continue reading “Superconfex-arrest: Cassatie bevestigt principes over draagwijdte van ‘lex concursus’ en individuele schade bij oplichting”

European Private International Law at 50. Celebrating and Contemplating EEX and its Successors

Jura Falconis Conference 23 March 2018, 10 AM – 5:30 PM (College De Valk, Leuven)

In 2018 we celebrate the 50th year since the adoption of the 1968 Brussels Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The 1968 attempt to facilitate the free movement of judgments in the EU, helped lay the foundations for the exciting developments in European private international law which have occurred since. Many of the outstanding issues in what is now the Brussels I Recast (also known as EEX-bis; or Brussels Ibis) continue to have an impact on other parts of European civil procedure.

Co-organised by Leuven Law’s Institute of Private International Law and Jura Falconis, KU Leuven’s student law review, this event will consider, capita selecta wise, the application and implications of the Convention and its successors. It will also discuss the future direction of EU private international law both for civil and commercial matters, and for issues outside of commercial litigation. At a time when in most Member States the majority of commercial transactions have some kind of international element, this is a timely refresher for practitioners, judges, students and scholars alike.
PROGRAM Continue reading “European Private International Law at 50. Celebrating and Contemplating EEX and its Successors”

Cross-border Insolvencies after Brexit: Views from the United Kingdom and Continental Europe

A recent paper of the Centre for International Governance Innovation and the British Institute of International and Comparative Law examines the consequences of Brexit for cross-border insolvencies. The conclusion of the paper reads as follows:

Whatever the outcome of the Brexit negotiations might be, it is possible that the United Kingdom will lose at least part of its attraction as a restructuring and insolvency hub for the remaining member states of the European Union.

Lost in translation? The case of ‘trust insolvency’

A ‘hybrid mismatch’ in private law?

In a previous blogpost, we formulated some thoughts on the CJEU’s judgment in the Panayi Trust Case. We concluded that, for various reasons, it could reasonably be expected that trusts can indeed be considered to be ‘entities’ which can come under the scope of the freedom of establishment.

The importance of language

Apart from this conclusion, the different language versions of the CJEU’s judgment, and especially a comparison thereof, make for an interesting reading.  Continue reading “Lost in translation? The case of ‘trust insolvency’”

Zit na invoering van een ‘cap’ op bestuursaansprakelijkheid straks iedereen aan het Belgisch vennootschapsrecht?

En bereiken we de ‘top’ of de ‘bottom’?

Het nieuwe jaar komt met de belofte van een nieuw vennootschapsrecht.

Eén van de meest fundamentele wijzigingen in de vooropgestelde hervorming van het vennootschapsrecht is de mogelijkheid om vrij het toepasselijk vennootschapsrecht te kiezen (vulgo: de statutaire zetelleer). Oprichters en aandeelhouders van een Belgische onderneming worden vrij in de keuze van de  lex societatis . Een Belgische onderneming zal, zonder enig reëel aanknopingspunt met de betrokken jurisdictie, kunnen kiezen voor het recht van Nederland, Bulgarije of Malta of — en hier zou de Belgische wetgever verder gaan dan dan enige Europese verplichting —  van Oezbekistan, Delaware of Panama.

Een andere voorgestelde wijziging zou de invoering zijn van een maximumbedrag voor bestuursaansprakelijkheid voor een feit of complex van feiten (de “cap“). 

Voor Belgische of  buitenlands ondernemers zal die ‘cap’ een van de meest unieke aspecten van het Belgisch vennootschapsrecht vormen.  In deze post gaan we in op mogelijke interferenties tussen de ‘cap’ en de mogelijkheid om je vennootschapsrecht vrij te kiezen.  Continue reading “Zit na invoering van een ‘cap’ op bestuursaansprakelijkheid straks iedereen aan het Belgisch vennootschapsrecht?”

ECJ on Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation: Actions for Liability in Tort in Insolvency Proceedings

Another Attempt to Create Order out of Chaos

In its preliminary ruling of 20 December 2017, the ECJ held that Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation (which excludes certain insolvency proceedings from its scope of application) must be interpreted as meaning that it applies to an action for liability in tort brought against the members of a committee of creditors (hereinafter referred to as “CoC”) because of their conduct in voting on a restructuring plan in insolvency proceedings. Such an action is therefore excluded from the scope ratione materiae of the Brussels I Recast, and hence falls within the scope of Article 3(1) of the (old) Insolvency Regulation. Consequently, the competent court is the one which opened the insolvency procedure.

Background

The facts of the case can be summarized as follows. VAV invest, a company incorporated under Slovak law whose assets were the subject of restructuring proceedings in Slovakia, submitted a restructuring plan. At its meeting, the CoC rejected the plan without providing any comprehensible reasons, which led to the frustration of the restructuring proceedings and the winding-up of VAV invest. Continue reading “ECJ on Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation: Actions for Liability in Tort in Insolvency Proceedings”