Eén van de meest belangwekkende voorgestelde wijzigingen in het wetsvoorstel tot implementatie van de Mobiliteitsrichtlijn (zie voor een eerste analyse reeds de eerdere blogpost van Jasper Van Eetvelde) zijn de uittredingsrechten voor minderheidsaandeelhouders die niet instemmen met de grensoverschrijdende fusie, splitsing of omzetting. In een eerdere post besprak ik reeds enkele fundamentele bedenkingen bij uittredingsrechten voor minderheidsaandeelhouders. Deze post gaat op zijn beurt dieper in op de krachtlijnen van de voorgestelde uittredingsrechten in het wetsontwerp alsook op enkele procedurele aandachtspunten voor de minderheidsaandeelhouder (en diens adviseur) die er na implementatie gebruik van wenst te maken. Het is namelijk vooral de minderheidsaandeelhouder voor wie de vraag “should I stay or should I go” echt relevant is.
Continue reading “Uittredingsrechten bij implementatie Mobiliteitsrichtlijn: enkele aandachtspunten”Category: EU law
Harmonisation of EU Insolvency Law: Is Europe Welcoming the New Commission’s Proposal?
With the publication of its Proposal for a Directive on the harmonisation of certain aspects of insolvency law in December 2022 (Proposal), the European Commission has moved into unchartered territory. The first responses have been divergent. Some commentators indicated that (part of) the Proposal is farfetched and at odds with currently well-functioning domestic insolvency legislation in EU Member States, whereas others had clearly hoped for more extensive proposals for harmonisation.
To explore the Proposal in further detail, the Conference on European Restructuring and Insolvency Law (CERIL) organises an international conference on 20 and 21 April 2023 in Leiden (the Netherlands). The CERIL Conference will bring together experts from practice, academia, and the bench who will assess the topics proposed for harmonisation. As input for the Conference itself, CERIL conducts a survey collecting views from across Europe on the reception of this new Proposal.
Commission Proposal to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission presented its long expected legislative proposal for a directive to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law (COM/2022/702 final). With the aim to contribute to the development of a Capital Markets Union, the Commission has put forward this Proposal on corporate insolvency rules. More specifically, the Commission aims to make substantive insolvency regimes more coherent by reducing legal uncertainty. It also aims to promote cross-border investment.
With the objective of harmonising ‘certain aspects of insolvency law’, the Proposal covers a variety of more or less separate topics, including (i) avoidance actions, (ii) asset tracing, (iii) pre-pack proceedings, (iv) directors’ duty to file, (v) winding-up of insolvent micro-enterprises, (vi) creditors’ committees, and lastly (vii) measures enhancing the transparency of national insolvency laws.
Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive: nieuwe stap richting uitgebreidere duurzaamheidsverslaggeving in de EU
Een post door gastbloggers Joris De Wolf en Bert Antonissen (Eubelius)
Inleiding. De Raad van de Europese Unie heeft op 28 november 2022 de Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) aangenomen. Hiermee is de laatste horde genomen richting meer gedetailleerde duurzaamheidsverslaggeving in de Europese Unie. Door de richtlijn zullen grote Europese ondernemingen, genoteerde Europese ondernemingen en bepaalde niet-Europese groepen in hun jaarverslag uitgebreid moeten rapporteren over duurzaamheidskwesties zoals milieurisico’s, sociale rechten, mensenrechten en governance.
De goedgekeurde tekst is hier raadpleegbaar.
Van NFRD naar CSRD. De Europese Commissie presenteerde in juli 2021 haar Green Deal, een pakket aan maatregelen dat Europa tegen 2050 klimaatneutraal moet maken. In dit kader werd ook een actieplan “Sustainable Finance” opgesteld, dat erop gericht is financiële stromen te kanaliseren naar duurzame investeringen met een minimale impact op klimaat en milieu. Om dit doel te bereiken, is het volgens de Europese Commissie noodzakelijk dat ondernemingen relevante, vergelijkbare en betrouwbare informatie over hun ESG-beleid ter beschikking stellen aan beleggers, kredietverstrekkers, NGO’s en andere belanghebbenden.
Public access to UBO registers across the EU ruled invalid
A post by Silvia Van Dyck, Nathalie Colin and Nikolaas Van Robbroeck (Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer)
The principle of transparency does not justify the interference with the rights of privacy and protection of personal data resulting from the general public’s access to UBO information
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) this week ruled that the provision under EU legislation which requires that beneficial ownership information on EU companies and other legal entities is generally and publicly accessible violates privacy and data protection rights and is therefore invalid. This represents a significantly change to the transparency of company information and may have an immediate impact on the related registers across the EU.
Continue reading “Public access to UBO registers across the EU ruled invalid”
Video: het stemmen per klassen bij een gerechtelijke reorganisatie na de implementatie van de Herstructureringsrichtlijn
Disputatio: Frederik De Leo vs Dominique De Marez
Terwijl de natie in blijde verwachting is van het voorontwerp tot implementatie van de Herstructuringsrichtlijn, is het nuttig het spannende debat tussen Frederik De Leo en Dominique De Marez op 1 juni jl. te (her)bekijken. Moderatie: Arie Van Hoe.
Het twistpunt luidde of de Belgische wetgever gebruik moet maken van de mogelijkheid om het stemmen per klassen niet toe te passen op KMO’s. De discussie geeft en passant ook een helder beeld van het systeem van de Richtlijn voor wie er nog niet vertrouwd mee is.
De video vindt u hier. De powerpoint presentaties vindt u hier. Zie verder hierover ook:
CERIL Report Reviews Cross-Border Effects in European Preventive Restructuring
Report 2022-2 on Cross-Border Effects in European Preventive Restructuring
The independent think tank Conference on European Restructuring and Insolvency Law (CERIL) has published its latest Statement and Report 2022-2 on Cross-Border Effects in European Preventive Restructuring. As EU Member States implement the EU Preventive Restructuring Directive (2019/1023), CERIL has identified and assessed the benefits and shortcomings of applying the European Insolvency Regulation 2015 (EIR 2015) to govern the cross-border effects of proceedings in national preventive restructuring frameworks. In the absence of an adequate framework for these new preventive restructuring proceedings, the CERIL Report and Statement formulate recommendations to the EU and national legislators.
Continue reading “CERIL Report Reviews Cross-Border Effects in European Preventive Restructuring”
The case of the missing shareholders in the proposed Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive
A post by guest blogger Marleen Och (KU Leuven)
Background
On 23 February 2022, the European Commission published its long-awaited proposal for a new Directive on corporate sustainability due diligence. This proposal is the next phase of an initiative on sustainable corporate governance, which the Commission launched in 2020. The initiative initially pursued several objectives, namely for companies to better manage environmental and human rights aspects in their operations and value chains and to align the companies’ interests with those of its management, shareholders, stakeholders and wider society. These changes would then introduce a shift away from short-term benefits towards long-term sustainable value creation.
Unlike the initiative itself, the proposal is not titled sustainable corporate governance, but corporate sustainability due diligence, illustrating the change in focus the Commission has seemingly undergone since the launch of the process. This post discusses the shift away from corporate governance and in particular the lack of recognition of the role of shareholders and the topic of short-termism.
Heiploeg: Europees Hof van Justitie geeft groen licht voor een wettelijk vastgelegde pre-pack of stil faillissement
In een eerdere post kondigden we aan dat de Nederlandse Hoge Raad in de context van de pre-pack van de Heiploeg-concern twee prejudiciële vragen heeft gesteld aan het Europees Hof van Justitie. Het Europees Hof van Justitie heeft deze vragen vandaag beantwoord. Het arrest vormt een nieuw hoogtepunt in de saga Estro – Plessers – Heiploeg.
Continue reading “Heiploeg: Europees Hof van Justitie geeft groen licht voor een wettelijk vastgelegde pre-pack of stil faillissement”De IPR-ontwikkeling van de paulianeuze onrechtmatige daadsvordering na het faillissement van een vennootschap
Hof van Justitie schept in arrest van 10 maart 2022 (C-498/20) duidelijkheid over toepassing art. 7 Brussel I bis-Verordening (rechtsmacht) en art. 4 Rome II-Verordening (toepasselijk recht)
Er was eens… een curator van een failliete vennootschap gevestigd in Nederland die een aansprakelijkheidsvordering instelde tegen de grootmoedervennootschap, met statutaire zetel te Duitsland, wegens schending van de op haar rustende zorgplicht jegens de gezamenlijke schuldeisers van de failliete vennootschap. De rechtbank Midden-Nederland had zich bij tussenvonnis in 2018 bevoegd verklaard op grond van de Europese Insolventieverordening, omdat het centrum van de voornaamste belangen van de failliete vennootschap in Nederland lag.[1]
In 2019 had de Nederlandse rechtbank een verzoek van de Stichting Belangenbehartiging Crediteuren om te mogen tussenkomen in het hoofgeding ingewilligd op grond van artikel 8, tweede lid van de Brussel I bis-Verordening. De stichting betoogt onder meer dat de indirect aandeelhouder ook onrechtmatig heeft gehandeld jegens de gezamenlijke schuldeisers van de failliete vennootschap en vordert namens die schuldeisers schadevergoeding via een collectieve actie (art. 3:305a NBW). De grondslag van de vorderingen van de Stichting is dezelfde als die van de curator. Anders dan in België is de bevoegdheid van de curator over de Peeters/Gatzen-vordering immers niet exclusief. Volgens de curator moet de indirecte aandeelhouder schadevergoeding betalen aan de boedel voor de onbetaalde schulden van de failliete vennootschap. Volgens de stichting moeten de schulden rechtstreeks aan de individuele schuldeisers worden betaald.[2]
Doordat het Hof van Justitie in het arrest van 6 februari 2019 had geoordeeld dat de rechtsmacht over een zgn. Peeters/Gatzen-vordering (het equivalent van onze collectieve paulianeuze onrechtmatige daadsvordering) wordt bepaald aan de hand van de Brussel I bis-Verordening, vroeg de rechtbank zich af (i) of zij nog bevoegd was om kennis te nemen van de vordering van de curator en de vordering tot tussenkomst van de stichting en (ii) of zij dan het Nederlandse recht kon toepassen. De rechtbank stelde talloze prejudiciële vragen, die het Hof van Justitie in het hierna besproken arrest van 10 maart 2022 reduceerde tot een kwartet.
Continue reading “De IPR-ontwikkeling van de paulianeuze onrechtmatige daadsvordering na het faillissement van een vennootschap”Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence – voorstel Commissie gepubliceerd
Vandaag heeft de Europese Commissie haar langverwachte voorstel inzake Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence gepubliceerd. Met dat voorstel wil de Europese Commissie ondernemingen verplichten het risico op schendingen van mensenrechten en milieuschade in hun waardeketen preventief op te sporen.
Aan grote ondernemingen of kleinere ondernemingen (met meer dan 250 werknemers) actief in bepaalde risico-sectoren wordt een due diligence verplichting opgelegd. In het bijzonder wordt gewezen op art. 25 van het voorstel, dat betrekking heeft op de zorgvuldigheidsplicht van bestuurders:
‘1. Member States shall ensure that, when fulfilling their duty to act in the best interest of the company, directors of companies referred to in Article 2(1) take into account the consequences of their decisions for sustainability matters, including, where applicable, human rights, climate change and environmental consequences, including in the short,
medium and long term.
2. Member States shall ensure that their laws, regulations and administrative provisions providing for a breach of directors’ duties apply also to the provisions of this Article.’
Dit voorstel zal in de komende maanden het voorwerp van onderhandelingen uitmaken van Europese onderhandelingen. Verwacht wordt dat deze onderhandelingen intens zullen zijn.
The impact of the EU Restructuring Directive on the Belgian collective plan: “To class or not to class?” – that’s the question for the Belgian legislator
A post by guest blogger Jente Dengler
The official deadline for the implementation of the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 on restructuring and insolvency was scheduled for 17 July 2021. Like many other Member States, Belgium availed itself of the possibility foreseen in the Directive to benefit from an extension of the implementation period by a maximum of one year. The Directive introduces the obligation to separate creditors into different classes for the purpose of voting on restructuring plans in order to prevent vulnerable creditors from being treated unfairly in business restructurings. Such class formation for the approval of a restructuring plan is unprecedented in Belgian insolvency law and could completely upset the bargaining dynamics between stakeholders in Belgian restructurings.
In his article “The impact of the EU Restrucuring Directive on the Belgian collective plan: “To class or not to class?” – that’s the question for the Belgian legislator” (available here), guest blogger Jente Dengler discusses the potential impact of the Directive’s voting model on the Belgian restructuring practice.
A summary of the full article published in INSOL International’s Collection of Short Papers can be found below:
Private enforcement strikes again: liability of subsidiaries and sister companies
Guest blogger Michiel Verhulst (KU Leuven) on the Sumal-case
Subsidiary companies, and presumably sister companies as well, can be held liable to pay damages for the EU competition law infringements committed by their parent companies. In its judgement of 6 October 2021, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice shed light on the EU autonomous concept of ‘undertaking’. The undertaking as a whole, meeting the characteristics of an economic unit, is to be considered personally liable for the actions of its different components. This automatically entails the joint and several liability among the legal and/or other entities that make up the economic unit at the time of the infringement.
More than two and a half years have passed since a previous blogpost explained how the judgement of the European Court of Justice of 14 March 2019 applied the autonomous EU concept of ‘undertaking’ to the private enforcement of EU competition law. As a result of this judgement, both the principles of parental liability and economic continuity became applicable when claiming damages for an infringement of the EU competition rules. The economic reality thus caught up with the legal matrix.
Continue reading “Private enforcement strikes again: liability of subsidiaries and sister companies”
A blank cheque for SPACs?
The regulator, SPAC and investor point of view – 29 October 2021
“Q1 of this year will go down as the 2000 internet bubble for SPACs. There was a unique confluence of factors that drove that insane risk-seeking behaviour, particularly at a retail investor level.” – FT, 27.09.2021
The next EU Financial Law clinic (Jan Ronse Institute, KU Leuven) will deal with one of the most intriguing phenomenons of this year: “special purpose acquisition companies”, or SPACs for short.
SPACs, short for “special purpose acquisition companies”, are companies without commercial operations or material assets. Once incorporated, they aim to raise money through an IPO to then buy another already existing company. Which company will be acquired is typically unknown at the time of the IPO. Investors therefore indeed give a “blank cheque” to the SPAC.
SPACs were probably one of the hottest product in the US investment industry in early 2021. In Europe, the picture is more diverse. While there have been over 32 SPACs in the Netherlands this year to date, Belgium is still waiting for its first SPAC.
In this financial law clinic, our four distinguished speakers will explore the topic of SPACs from a regulatory, practical and investor protection perspective. They will first discuss the process of creating a SPAC and the subsequent de-SPAC procedure, with attention for the practical and regulatory challenges involved, based on practical experience with cases in the Netherlands and Luxembourg. They will then focus on the (potential) regulatory framework (prospectus, MiFID product governance, market abuse, and AIF legislation) and compare the SPAC-process with traditional IPOs. In addition, the speakers will address the question why certain Member States seem to attract many more SPACs than others, and analyze the diverse supervisory responses to the phenomenon (by ESMA and several national regulators). Finally, the speakers will discuss potential causes for the recent difficulties experienced by SPACs and the future potential of the phenomenon.
Our four speakers are experts in this area. Gregory Frigo is a senior policy officer at the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) and has been working on the recent ESMA guidance on SPACs. Annemie Rombouts will present the FSMA’s recently published minimum standards for SPACs. Martijn Schoonewille, attorney at law at the Loyens&Loeff Amsterdam office, has advised several SPACs in both the Netherlands and Luxemburg. Vanessa Marquette, attorney at law at the Loyens&Loeff Brussels office, has analyzed the regulatory constraints for SPACs in Belgium and conducted a comparative overview of the treatment of SPACs in Belgium, Luxembourg and in the Netherlands.
The new prudential framework for investment firms – More fit for purpose?
A post by guest bloggers Ivan Peeters, Charles-Henri Bernard and Leopoldo Luyten de Alvear
1. Investment firms play a key role in modern financial markets and in advising professional and retail clients. In particular they assist in matching investors and funds to be invested with investment opportunities and funding needs. The current market situation combines a structural low interest rate environment on the one hand and an expected surge of projects that need funding or equity. Such surge will not in the least be driven by ESG (environmental sustainability targets in particular) and by the efforts to re-open the economies in Western Europe.
2. In December 2019, the EU Parliament approved the new prudential framework for investment firms in the Investment Firm Directive (“IFD”) [1] and Investment Firm Regulation (“IFR”)[2] to be implemented in the European Union (“EU”) by 26 June 2021. This represents a significant reform in the EU regulatory framework and will have a material impact on most investment firms. In the Belgian regulatory landscape, investment firms are either stockbroking firms (sociétés de bourse / beursvennootschappen) or portfolio management companies(société de gestion de portefeuille et de conseil en investissement / vennootschappen voor vermogensbeheer en beleggingsadvies). Continue reading “The new prudential framework for investment firms – More fit for purpose?”
Green disclosure rules for the financial services sector become applicable in the EU
A post by guest blogger Arnaud Van Caenegem (KU Leuven)
Financial services providers can no longer communicate at will about sustainability now certain provisions of the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR)[1] have become applicable as of 10 March 2021. The SFDR imposes harmonized disclosure obligations on financial services providers to ensure that the sustainability features of their financial products can be better compared by investors. Up until now, sustainability disclosures have often been limited to vague, unsubstantiated and sometimes misleading marketing rhetoric.[2] This blogpost will discuss the transparency obligations of the SFDR that become applicable on 10 March 2021. Continue reading “Green disclosure rules for the financial services sector become applicable in the EU”
Corporate Finance Lab 