"We couldn't do as good a job as we do without it. ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø gives us the security and confidence that we are best serving our clients because the information we are working on is the most accurate we can get"
Avensure
Access all documents on Recast Regulation
Also known as the Regulation (EU) 848/2015 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) (the Recast Regulation). It repeals the EC Regulation on Insolvency and is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of insolvency proceedings with a cross-border element.
Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.
For our full legal glossary and more legal research sources, register for a free Lexis+ trial
Ireland—Determining jurisdiction in civil litigation—checklist This Checklist offers guidance on how to determine whether an Irish court has jurisdiction to deal with the specific civil dispute. In doing so, it considers provisions under Brussels I (recast), the Lugano Convention and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. This Checklist provides an overview of jurisdiction in terms of considering whether the dispute should be dealt with in Ireland. For guidance on: • which specific court an action should be raised in, see Practice Note: Ireland—Starting a civil action • other issues to consider before bringing a civil claim in an Irish court and how to start and progress a civil claim in Ireland, see Practice Notes: Ireland—Starting a civil action and Ireland—Pre-action conduct, and in initiating and case managing a civil claim, Ireland—Progressing and managing a High Court civil claim respectively • other aspects of Irish civil litigation, see: Ireland—Alternative dispute resolution and settlement—overview which links through to detailed guidance on specific aspects of dispute resolution in Ireland This Checklist...
Arbitration—IP completion day—checklist [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Checklist has been archived and is not maintained. This Checklist considers the impact of Brexit on commercial arbitration law and practice in England and Wales after IP completion day, ie the end of the transition or implementation period provided for in Article 126 of the Withdrawal Agreement 2020 which began on exit day (ie 11 pm on 31 January 2020, as defined in section 20 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018) and ends on IP completion day. IP completion day is defined as 31 December 2020 at 11 pm (pursuant to section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020). On 24 December 2020, the European Commission and UK government announced an agreement in principle on the legal terms of the future EU-UK relationship. The Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), and associated agreements, were agreed at the eleventh hour, leaving little time to put in place the necessary legal and practical arrangements to make the deal fully operational on 1 January...
Discover our 6 Checklists on Recast Regulation
From IP completion day onwards, this document is archived and no longer maintained.Brexit impactAs of exit day (31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK has entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. References to exit day in many Brexit SIs are to be read as reference to IP completion day (Implementation Period completion day, defined in clause 39 as 31 December 2020 at 11.00 pm) (unless that provision is expressly disapplied by the SI in question). For further details, see News Analysis: Brexit—impact of the Withdrawal Agreement and European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 for R&I lawyers and Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources. For further details on the impact on the Recast Regulation on insolvency, see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on Recast Regulation on Insolvency.For details of the impact on credit institutions, see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on insolvent credit institutions. For details of the impact on insurers, see...
From IP completion day onwards, this document is archived and is no longer maintained.Brexit impactAs of exit day (31 January 2020) the UK is no longer an EU Member State. However, in accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, the UK has entered an implementation period, during which it continues to be subject to EU law. References to exit day in many Brexit SIs are to be read as reference to IP completion day (Implementation Period completion day, defined in clause 39 as 31 December 2020 at 11.00 pm) (unless that provision is expressly disapplied by the SI in question). For further details, see News Analysis: Brexit—impact of the Withdrawal Agreement and European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 for R&I lawyers and Brexit Bulletin—key updates, research tips and resources. For further details, see Practice Note: Brexit—impact on Recast Regulation on Insolvency.For Rome I, Rome II and the Rome Convention, The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/834 have an impact. For further details,...
Discover our 112 Practice Notes on Recast Regulation
Special administration—witness statement in support of application for special administration Applicant [NAME OF WITNESS] First Witness Statement Date: [] Exhibit [XX1] Court Reference No: [INSERT COURT REF. NUMBER] [ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS [OF ENGLAND AND WALES] [IN [INSERT LOCATION]] [COMPANY & INSOLVENCY LIST (ChD)] OR [IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [INSERT LOCATION]] [BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS LIST] OR [IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE] [CHANCERY DIVISION] OR IN THE MATTER OF [INVESTMENT BANK NAME] AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INVESTMENT BANK SPECIAL ADMINISTRATION REGULATIONS 2011 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT 1986 _________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF [WITNESS NAME] ___________________________________________ I, [witness name], director [and chairperson] of [investment bank name] of [investment bank address] WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS: 1 I am [a director and] [the chairperson] of [investment bank address] with company number [company number] (the Company). The Company is a wholly-owned subsidiary of [insert details], a company incorporated in [location]. It is in...
Security review report Prepared in relation to [name of borrower] (a limited company registered in England and Wales with company number [company number]) Prepared for [name of lender] By [name of law firm] Date: [date] 1 Scope We have prepared this report on the validity and enforceability of the security held by [name of lender] (the lender) in respect of the obligations of [name of Borrower] (the borrower). We have considered the enforcement options available to you should you wish to take enforcement action. This report is based on the documentation provided by you and the searches set out at Appendix 3. [We have not undertaken a detailed review of the terms of any relevant loan facilities for the purposes of this report. Should you require a review of the loan facilities to assess potential defaults and breaches please contact us]. If there is a delay between the date of this report and the time at which enforcement action is taken, we advise that we should be...
Dive into our 9 Precedents related to Recast Regulation
Is security for costs available against a company prior to starting proceeding? Just because a company is based abroad in a non-convention state, is security for costs automatically granted? Is security for costs available against a company prior to starting proceedings? Security for costs is only available when there are actual court proceedings. It is not available pre-action. Although pre-action costs can be recovered in litigation and may, therefore, form part of an application for security, there is little that defendants can do to protect themselves regarding pre-action costs if there is no subsequent litigation. For guidance on recovering pre-action costs, see Practice Note: Pre-action—costs recovery. Just because a company is based abroad in a non-convention state, is security for costs automatically granted? Pursuant to CPR 25.13, a court may make an order for security for costs if: ‘it is satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, that it is just to make such an order, and… one or more of the conditions in...
Can a statutory demand be served and enforced in the UK upon a limited company incorporated in Malta, where the company operates in the UK but its head office is in Malta? We have assumed that the company in question was incorporated under Maltese law. The key to answering this question is to understand what it means to 'enforce' a statutory demand—presumably this means to present a winding-up petition where the debt demanded remains unpaid more than 21 days (or some other period) following service. In that case, the first consideration would be whether the courts in England and Wales would have jurisdiction to wind up a company with its registered office situated in Malta. Malta is an EU Member State, and therefore the Recast Regulation on Insolvency, Regulation (EU) 848/2015, would apply. Jurisdiction to open main proceedings is granted to the courts of the Member State where the debtor has its center of main interests (COMI). Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 848/2015 provides that—(i) the...
See the 28 Q&As about Recast Regulation
Arbitration analysis: One of the first English decisions, relating to a disputed requirement to pay for non-fungible tokens (NFTs), has now reached the English Court of Appeal. The court overturned the High Court's decision to stay a consumer's claim for a declaration that an arbitration agreement in an auction platform's terms of use was unfair. The Court of Appeal refused to stay the English proceedings commenced by the consumer, Mr Soleymani, in favour of a New York arbitration initiated by Nifty Gateway LLC ('Nifty'), an online platform, pursuant to its terms of use. The Court of Appeal considered the UK consumer context to be a ‘powerful factor’ in refusing a stay of English proceedings under section 9(4) the Arbitration Act 1996 (AA 1996) and directed a trial on the validity of the arbitration agreement. Written by Simon Chapman, partner, Charlie Morgan, senior associate, Olga Dementyeva, associate and Dan Huang, trainee solicitor at Herbert Smith Freehills LLP.
Arbitration analysis: In Soleymani v Nifty Gateway LLC (The Competition and Markets Authority intervening) [2022] EWCA Civ 1297, the Court of Appeal considered, for the first time post-Brexit, the interplay between the legal frameworks for consumer protection and for international arbitration. Graham Dunning KC, barrister, and Angeline Welsh, barrister of Essex Court Chambers provide an analysis of this case.
Read the latest 15 News articles on Recast Regulation
**Trials are provided to all ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these ÑÇÖÞÉ«ÇéÍø services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234