This book includes a plain text version that is designed for high accessibility. To use this version please follow this link.
20


Schultze & Braun Ec dr. christoph von Wilcken I www.lawyer-monthly.com


JANUARY 2013


proposals to change insolvency regulations:


Schultze & Braun give us the lowdown


In December, the European Commission published proposals to modernise the European Insolvency Regulation. To find out more and glean exclusive comment, Lawyer Monthly speaks to Dr. Christoph von Wilcken, a lawyer specialising in insolvency law at leading German law firm, Schultze & Braun. Here he highlights the main changes and what impact they may have on Europe’s restructuring industry.


t is intended that businesses hit by the economic crisis will be thrown a lifeline under the new proposals, and otherwise viable businesses will be given a ‘second chance’. The


Commission is proposing to modernise the current rules on cross border insolvency which date from 2002. Benefitting from ten years of experience, the new rules will shift focus away from liquidation and develop a new approach to helping businesses overcome financial difficulties, all the while protecting creditors' right to get their money back.


The new rules will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of cross-border insolvency proceedings, affecting an estimated 50 000 companies across the EU every year. This is a first step towards an


EU "rescue and recovery" culture to help companies and individuals in financial difficulties; this is explored further in a policy communication adopted in parallel today which identifies those areas of national insolvency law which have the greatest potential to create an "unfriendly" business environment and to hamper the development of an efficient insolvency framework in the internal market.


The proposal extends, as expected, the scope of the Regulation to pre-insolvency proceedings, the aim of which is to rescue or reorganize a debtor or bring an adjustment of debt about. In response to this, Christoph commented: ‘Solvent Schemes of Arrangement under the Company Act 2006 could according to


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112