Category: *In English

A bad construction job. The contractual nature of the actio pauliana under Brussels Ia

Readers of this blog will be familiar with the European Court of Justice’s Feniks v Azteca ruling [1] – on which we reported earlier. There, the Court held that the actio pauliana – a form of fraudulent conveyance action – was a ‘matter relating to a contract’ for the purpose of Art 7(1) Brussels Ia (Regulation 1215/2012).[2] The upshot of this ruling was that the third party who allegedly frustrated the claimant’s contractual interest could be sued in the court of the place of performance of the defrauded contract (cfr Art 7(1)(b) Brussels Ia).

In Norbert Reitbauer aors v Enrico Casamassima (Case C-722/17 ECLI:EU:C:2019:285), AG Tanchev carefully reconsidered and further analysed the contractual nature of the actio pauliana.

Continue reading “A bad construction job. The contractual nature of the actio pauliana under Brussels Ia”

New rules on business insolvency adopted

Yesterday, the Council of the European Union formally adopted today the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures. The European Parliament formally voted on the directive on 28 March 2019. This marks the end of the legislative procedure. Continue reading “New rules on business insolvency adopted”

The ECJ in ‘Plessers’: Employee Protection in Insolvency Proceedings by Transfer of Undertaking

In search of the right balance between employee protection and efficiency of insolvency proceedings

In its preliminary ruling of today, the ECJ has followed its AG and decided that Council Directive 2001/23/EC (the ‘Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as Article 61(3) of the Belgian WCO (now Article XX.86(3) WER), which, in the event of the transfer of an undertaking which has taken place in the context of proceedings for judicial restructuring by transfer under judicial supervision (‘GROG’) applied with a view to maintaining all or part of the transferor or its activity, entitles the transferee to choose the employees which it wishes to keep on.

On 23 April 2012, NV Echo entered into a judicial reorganisation proceeding. A collective agreement could not be reached and on 19 February 2013, a GROG was initiated. On 22 April 2013, NV Prefaco took over the business of NV Echo together with two-thirds of the total employees of the transferor.

Plessers, who was one of the dismissed employees, argued (among other things) that Continue reading “The ECJ in ‘Plessers’: Employee Protection in Insolvency Proceedings by Transfer of Undertaking”

Belgische Corporate Governance Code 2020

De nieuwe Belgische Corporate Governance Code 2020 is vandaag voorgesteld. De code is van toepassing op vennootschappen naar Belgisch recht waarvan de aandelen verhandeld worden op een gereglementeerde markt (‘genoteerde vennootschappen’) zoals gedefinieerd in het Wetboek van vennootschappen en verenigingen. Continue reading “Belgische Corporate Governance Code 2020”

UK Supreme Court enables expansive supply chain liability

A parent company’s liability for damage caused by its subsidiary is grounded in control

On 10 April 2019, in Vedanta v Lungowe, the UK Supreme Court confirmed the England and Wales Court of Appeal’s decision that Vedanta may owe a duty of care to neighbours of the copper mine operated by its Zambian subsidiary. The judgment is important in three respects. First, Vedanta v Lungowe marks the first time the UK Supreme Court found that a duty of care vis-à-vis parties other than the subsidiary’s employees may be owed by the parent company (albeit in its capacity of operator). Second, this duty of care is not novel and, therefore, the lenient test for adjudicatory jurisdiction is applicable. Third, in dicta, the UK Supreme Court clarified the legal basis and scope of supply chain liability.

In this post, the UK Supreme Court’s ruling is discussed, including the assessments of jurisdiction at a preliminary stage and the issue of novelty. It also reviews the implications of the Court’s dicta for the doctrine of supply chain liability. Continue reading “UK Supreme Court enables expansive supply chain liability”

Koninklijk besluit van 29 april 2019 tot uitvoering van het Wetboek van vennootschappen en verenigingen

Aan de vooravond van de inwerkingtreding van het Wetboek van vennootschappen en verenigingen is het Koninklijk besluit van 29 april 2019 tot uitvoering van het Wetboek van vennootschappen en verenigingen gepubliceerd in het Belgisch Staatsblad. De hervorming van het vennootschaps- en verenigingsrecht is hiermee definitief afgerond.  Continue reading “Koninklijk besluit van 29 april 2019 tot uitvoering van het Wetboek van vennootschappen en verenigingen”

Concordantietabel W.Venn. – WVV

Artikel 32 WVV bepaalt dat de Koning de verwijzingen in wetten en koninklijke besluiten naar bepalingen die in het WVV werden opgenomen, kan aanpassen, met behulp van de bijgevoegde concordantietabel. De concordantietabel in kwestie werd ten gevolge van een vergetelheid niet in de wet van 23 maart 2019 ingevoegd. Continue reading “Concordantietabel W.Venn. – WVV”

The thinking of Hayek and Schumpeter on the efficiency of markets: similarities and differences

In the essay below, Dieter Van Esbroeck, discusses competing theories on market efficiency of Pareto, Hayek and Schumpeter. The different insights in the operations of the market lead to rather diverging policy recommendations to harvest the gains of free competition and efficiency. His essay won the Montaigne-Essay contest of 2019 organized by the Institute for Education in Philosophy and Social Sciences (Ifese).

Continue reading “The thinking of Hayek and Schumpeter on the efficiency of markets: similarities and differences”

Seminarie over Coase, Buchanan en Becker

Zaterdag 27 april 2019 organiseert het Instituut voor Filosofische en Sociaal-wetenschappelijke Educatie (Ifese) een seminarie over Law and Economics. Tijdens dit seminarie kunnen de deelnemers teksten van de hand van Ronald Coase, James Buchanan en Gary Becker bediscussiëren onder begeleiding van em. prof. dr. Boudewijn Bouckaert. De activiteit zal plaatsvinden in Antwerpen.

Teksten

Continue reading “Seminarie over Coase, Buchanan en Becker”

European Parliament approves rules on business insolvency and second chance

Today, the European Parliament approved the  directive on business insolvency and restructuring procedures.

The insolvency framework covers three main measures:

  • preventative restructuring framework: that allows companies in financial difficulty to negotiate a restructuring plan with creditors, while maintaining their activity and preserving jobs
  • second chance for honest insolvent or over-indebted entrepreneurs, through full debt discharge after a maximum period of 3 years, with safeguards against abuse
  • targeted measures for member states to increase efficiency of insolvency, restructuring and discharge procedures, in particular expedient treatment of procedures

The final text also includes guarantees that workers’ rights, such as collective bargaining and industrial action, right to information and consultation, will not be affected by restructuring procedures.

Requirements on the duties of the company director in insolvency proceedings were also introduced. They include regard to the interest of creditors, other stakeholders and equity holders, taking steps to avoid insolvency and avoiding deliberate or grossly negligent conduct that threatens the viability of the business.

The debate continues

In the final hours before the vote on the Preventive Restructuring Framework, the debate continues in full force. Two blog posts have been posted, urging the legislators to carefully reflect upon the proposed text.

The first post is written by prof. dr. M. Brinkmann (“Die relative Vorrangregel aus Art. 11 (1) (c) der Insolvenzrichtlinie: nicht nur untauglich, sondern brandgefährlich!”) and can be consulted here.

The second post (“Puzzling priorities: harmonisation of European Preventive Restructuring Frameworks”) is written by Anne Mennens and can be consulted here.

Who says insolvency law cannot be thrilling?

 

 

 

The Debate on the Preventive Restructuring Directive continues while the vote is near

The message of the post last week on this blog by Professor R.J. de Weijs, A.L. Jonkers and M. Malakotipour of the University of Amsterdam has been replicated by the authors in a Letter to the EP, with a supporting letter by Professor Douglas Baird of The University of Chicago.

Professor Bob Wessels of Leiden has replied to their arguments on his blog.

The draft Directive is up for vote on  27 March 2019.

The underestimated role of tax law in promoting asset partitioning ánd discouraging selective de-partitioning

Asset partitioning refers to limited liability (or: owner shielding) and entity shielding. In both cases a pool of assets is allocated to a pool of liabilities.

The economic justifications of limited liability and entity shielding typically refer – sometimes implicitly – to the situation of many shareholders in a business. Hansmann and Squire refer to this type of asset partitioning as external asset partitioning (“External and Internal Asset Partitioning: Corporations and Their Subsidiaries, The Oxford Handbook of Corporate Law and Governance (Forthcoming)”; Yale Law & Economics Research Paper No. 535, 2.). Asset partitioning is also used within a business to make separate pools of assets and liabilities; this is internal asset partitioning (ibid.). A typical example is a corporate group, where the business as an economic unity is internally, through affiliates, divided in separate pools of assets.  We also consider a company owned (or primarily owned) by a single shareholder as internal asset partitioning, even if that shareholder is a physical person. The economic unity between the single shareholder and the business of her company is similar to, if not stronger than, that between the separate entities of a corporate group.

Asset partitioning builds walls between pools of assets and liabilities. Sometimes the insiders themselves disregard the asset partitioning which they have set up themselves. This is referred to as selective de-partitioning. A crude example is the single shareholder or the parent company extracting assets from its company or subsidiary or shifting liabilities towards it. A more sophisticated example is a guarantee of one entity of a group towards another entity of the group. Often legal rules provide the creditors of the shareholders of a company with remedies against selective de-partitioning. In such a case the law reinforces the walls of asset partitioning.

We will use Belgian law as an example of how an entity-focussed tax law can favour asset partitioning and discourage selective de-partitioning. Continue reading “The underestimated role of tax law in promoting asset partitioning ánd discouraging selective de-partitioning”

The CJEU Vantaan kaupunki case: piercing the corporate veil via private enforcement of EU competition law

A post by Jasper Van Eetvelde & Michiel Verhulst

The CJEU judgement on the 14th of March 2019 in the Vantaan kaupunki case shows the increasing spillover effects of the public enforcement of competition law on the private enforcement thereof. The CJEU found that the concept of ‘undertaking’ as autonomously interpreted in competition law is applicable when claiming for damages on the basis of breaches of EU competition law. This has far-reaching consequences, since it implies that both the principles of parental liability and economic continuity are henceforth part of the national rules on the private enforcement of EU competition law. This triggers some reflections on corporate law on voluntary winding-up in general and the usefulness of focussing on the economic reality outside competition law. Continue reading “The CJEU Vantaan kaupunki case: piercing the corporate veil via private enforcement of EU competition law”

A reply to professor Madaus “The new European Relative Priority from the Preventive Restructuring Directive – The end of European Insolvency Law?”

A post by guest bloggers prof. dr. R.J. de Weijs, A.L. Jonkers LLM and M. Malakotipour LLB (University Amsterdam)

On March 26, 2019 the European Parliament will vote on the Preventive Restructuring Framework.

The initial draft Directive from 2016 contained a rule providing the basic protection that shareholders of a financially distressed and reorganized company could not hold on to any value unless the creditors by majority vote consented thereto. Such a rule is in force in US and German law and is referred to as an Absolute Priority Rule (‘APR’). The US has been an important source of inspiration for implementing such a far-reaching reorganization procedure. The Absolute Priority Rule is generally considered to be one of the most important rules of US bankruptcy law, see recently the US Supreme Court in the famous Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp case, calling the APR “quite appropriately, bankruptcy’s most important and famous rule” and “the cornerstone of reorganization practice and theory.”[1]

Without much in-depth analyses or debate, the European Union is about to embark on a wild adventure. It seeks to implement the US reorganization culture, without however the most basic rule of protection. Continue reading “A reply to professor Madaus “The new European Relative Priority from the Preventive Restructuring Directive – The end of European Insolvency Law?””