Past events
For information about events not listed, please contact Caroline Taylor.
INSOL Europe Academic Forum Conference 2020 - MEMBERS
Date
30-09-2020
Location
Zoom Webinar
30 September, 2020
16:00 to 17:40 (CET)
Online Event - Zoom
Our annual event will be online this year. One session will take place on Wednesday 30 September 16:00 - 17:40 (CET). This year the Academic Forum's Annual Conference will be held on-line with two highly relevant papers by Professors Horst Eidenmüller and Kristin Van Zwieten, both of University of Oxford, and by Lydia Tsioli of King's College London.
Registration will be free for members or €50+VAT for non-members. If you are a non-member but a full time academic you qualify for a free place on application to Harriet Taylor.
Further information
More details will be posted here when available. If you have any queries, please contact Event Manager, Harriet Taylor. In the meantime, keep your diary free for this special event!
With thanks to our Academic Sponsor
Edwin Coe – www.edwincoe.com
Prof. Horst Eidenmüller, Prof. Kristin Van Zwieten, University of Oxford
Stabilizing Corporate Workouts (Out-Of-Court Restructurings) in Times of the COVID 19-Pandemic and Beyond: The Case for Creditor Cooperation Duties
Short CVs
Horst Eidenmüller is a Statutory Professor for Commercial Law at the University of Oxford and a Professorial Fellow of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford. He is a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute and a Member of the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Full details are here .
Kristin van Zwieten is Clifford Chance Associate Professor of Law and Finance at the University of Oxford and the Gullifer Fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford. She is Director of the Commercial Law Centre at Harris Manchester College and a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the case for creditor cooperation duties in corporate workouts. We demonstrate how such duties could facilitate beneficial out-of-court restructurings and what their doctrinal basis is or could be in key jurisdictions (United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Germany).
The COVID 19-Pandemic causes financial distress for firms on an unprecedented scale. Millions of economically viable firms worldwide are affected. A large subset of these firms will need to be restructured. Workouts (out-of-court restructurings) are preferred to court-supervised processes because they involve much lower direct and indirect insolvency costs. But workouts are inherently unstable: they are based on consent and may be undermined by the presence of free-riders (holdouts). Creditors face a multi-party prisoners’ dilemma. Cooperating to implement an out-of-court restructuring plan is in the interest of the creditors as a whole (and in the interest of the debtor). However, each creditor has an incentive to hold out and freeride on the contributions of others.
Laws governing corporate workouts differ. Creditor autonomy and contractual freedom are central to the workout regimes in many jurisdictions. At the same time, at least in some jurisdictions, tort laws, rules on quasi-contract or even company laws impose limits on selfish creditor behavior in a workout setting—for the benefit of the creditor community. These rules may be used to develop a system of “creditor cooperation duties” to stabilize a corporate workout. Under certain specified conditions, creditors would no longer be free to “do what they want” in a workout setting. They would be obliged to negotiate a restructuring plan in good faith, and they might even have to agree to such a plan. We explore this idea by investigating the legal regime governing workouts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany.
Lydia Tsioli, King's College London
Viability Assessment: Models and filtering mechanisms from U.S. Chapter 11 to the European Directive
Short CVs
Lydia Tsioli is a PhD in Law Candidate at King's College London as well as a Qualified Lawyer at the Athens Bar Association. From January till July 2020 she has been a Visiting Researcher at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
Distinguishing viable companies from non-viable ones is at the epicentre of the law of corporate distress. Providing for frameworks that facilitate the restructuring of financially distressed yet viable companies, while at the same time succeed in filtering out non-viable ones towards liquidation has always been a real challenge for legislators. At European level, despite the numerous references of the directive on restructuring and insolvency to the notion of viability, the latter has not yet received equally high levels of attention in Europe compared to the United States, a leading jurisdiction in this field. In building a true rescue culture upon correct foundations across Europe, a close reflection on the notion of viability, especially on a comparative basis, would thus be beneficial.
As such, this paper takes as a starting point the intricate notion of viability, its meaning and role for a corporate debt restructuring framework, as well as what these two signify for the scope of such a framework. It then presents the different existing models of viability assessment and subsequently focuses on what the author defines as the “filtering mechanisms” employed by one of these models. More specifically, the paper investigates the filtering mechanisms embedded into U.S. Chapter 11 and juxtaposes these with the provisions of the European directive on restructuring and insolvency with the aim to evaluate the latter under the comparative light of Chapter 11.
In developing the above, the paper uses both legislative provisions and extensive case law in order to demonstrate how the notion of viability both permeates Chapter 11 and constitutes the “litmus test” underlying the filtering mechanisms embedded into its framework. These conclusions serve as a springboard for a close look at the provisions of the European directive. Through this, the paper evaluates the European framework and puts forward suggestions for its interpretation/potential reform in order for it to achieve an effective filtering of viable companies from non-viable ones.
Stabilizing Corporate Workouts (Out-Of-Court Restructurings) in Times of the COVID 19-Pandemic and Beyond: The Case for Creditor Cooperation Duties
Short CVs
Horst Eidenmüller is a Statutory Professor for Commercial Law at the University of Oxford and a Professorial Fellow of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford. He is a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute and a Member of the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Full details are here .
Kristin van Zwieten is Clifford Chance Associate Professor of Law and Finance at the University of Oxford and the Gullifer Fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford. She is Director of the Commercial Law Centre at Harris Manchester College and a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the case for creditor cooperation duties in corporate workouts. We demonstrate how such duties could facilitate beneficial out-of-court restructurings and what their doctrinal basis is or could be in key jurisdictions (United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Germany).
The COVID 19-Pandemic causes financial distress for firms on an unprecedented scale. Millions of economically viable firms worldwide are affected. A large subset of these firms will need to be restructured. Workouts (out-of-court restructurings) are preferred to court-supervised processes because they involve much lower direct and indirect insolvency costs. But workouts are inherently unstable: they are based on consent and may be undermined by the presence of free-riders (holdouts). Creditors face a multi-party prisoners’ dilemma. Cooperating to implement an out-of-court restructuring plan is in the interest of the creditors as a whole (and in the interest of the debtor). However, each creditor has an incentive to hold out and freeride on the contributions of others.
Laws governing corporate workouts differ. Creditor autonomy and contractual freedom are central to the workout regimes in many jurisdictions. At the same time, at least in some jurisdictions, tort laws, rules on quasi-contract or even company laws impose limits on selfish creditor behavior in a workout setting—for the benefit of the creditor community. These rules may be used to develop a system of “creditor cooperation duties” to stabilize a corporate workout. Under certain specified conditions, creditors would no longer be free to “do what they want” in a workout setting. They would be obliged to negotiate a restructuring plan in good faith, and they might even have to agree to such a plan. We explore this idea by investigating the legal regime governing workouts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany.
Lydia Tsioli, King's College London
Viability Assessment: Models and filtering mechanisms from U.S. Chapter 11 to the European Directive
Short CVs
Lydia Tsioli is a PhD in Law Candidate at King's College London as well as a Qualified Lawyer at the Athens Bar Association. From January till July 2020 she has been a Visiting Researcher at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
Distinguishing viable companies from non-viable ones is at the epicentre of the law of corporate distress. Providing for frameworks that facilitate the restructuring of financially distressed yet viable companies, while at the same time succeed in filtering out non-viable ones towards liquidation has always been a real challenge for legislators. At European level, despite the numerous references of the directive on restructuring and insolvency to the notion of viability, the latter has not yet received equally high levels of attention in Europe compared to the United States, a leading jurisdiction in this field. In building a true rescue culture upon correct foundations across Europe, a close reflection on the notion of viability, especially on a comparative basis, would thus be beneficial.
As such, this paper takes as a starting point the intricate notion of viability, its meaning and role for a corporate debt restructuring framework, as well as what these two signify for the scope of such a framework. It then presents the different existing models of viability assessment and subsequently focuses on what the author defines as the “filtering mechanisms” employed by one of these models. More specifically, the paper investigates the filtering mechanisms embedded into U.S. Chapter 11 and juxtaposes these with the provisions of the European directive on restructuring and insolvency with the aim to evaluate the latter under the comparative light of Chapter 11.
In developing the above, the paper uses both legislative provisions and extensive case law in order to demonstrate how the notion of viability both permeates Chapter 11 and constitutes the “litmus test” underlying the filtering mechanisms embedded into its framework. These conclusions serve as a springboard for a close look at the provisions of the European directive. Through this, the paper evaluates the European framework and puts forward suggestions for its interpretation/potential reform in order for it to achieve an effective filtering of viable companies from non-viable ones.
Academic Forum sponsored by
INSOL Europe Academic Forum Conference 2020 - NON MEMBERS
Date
30-09-2020
Location
Zoom Webinar
30 September, 2020
16:00 to 17:40 (CET)
Online Event - Zoom
Our annual event will be online this year. One session will take place on Wednesday 30 September 16:00 - 17:40 (CET). This year the Academic Forum's Annual Conference will be held on-line with two highly relevant papers by Professors Horst Eidenmüller and Kristin Van Zwieten, both of University of Oxford, and by Lydia Tsioli of King's College London.
Registration will be free for members or €50+VAT for non-members. If you are a non-member but a full time academic you qualify for a free place on application to Harriet Taylor.
Further information
More details will be posted here when available. If you have any queries, please contact Event Manager, Harriet Taylor. In the meantime, keep your diary free for this special event!
With thanks to our Academic Sponsor
Edwin Coe – www.edwincoe.com
Prof. Horst Eidenmüller, Prof. Kristin Van Zwieten, University of Oxford
Stabilizing Corporate Workouts (Out-Of-Court Restructurings) in Times of the COVID 19-Pandemic and Beyond: The Case for Creditor Cooperation Duties
Short CVs
Horst Eidenmüller is a Statutory Professor for Commercial Law at the University of Oxford and a Professorial Fellow of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford. He is a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute and a Member of the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Full details are here .
Kristin van Zwieten is Clifford Chance Associate Professor of Law and Finance at the University of Oxford and the Gullifer Fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford. She is Director of the Commercial Law Centre at Harris Manchester College and a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the case for creditor cooperation duties in corporate workouts. We demonstrate how such duties could facilitate beneficial out-of-court restructurings and what their doctrinal basis is or could be in key jurisdictions (United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Germany).
The COVID 19-Pandemic causes financial distress for firms on an unprecedented scale. Millions of economically viable firms worldwide are affected. A large subset of these firms will need to be restructured. Workouts (out-of-court restructurings) are preferred to court-supervised processes because they involve much lower direct and indirect insolvency costs. But workouts are inherently unstable: they are based on consent and may be undermined by the presence of free-riders (holdouts). Creditors face a multi-party prisoners’ dilemma. Cooperating to implement an out-of-court restructuring plan is in the interest of the creditors as a whole (and in the interest of the debtor). However, each creditor has an incentive to hold out and freeride on the contributions of others.
Laws governing corporate workouts differ. Creditor autonomy and contractual freedom are central to the workout regimes in many jurisdictions. At the same time, at least in some jurisdictions, tort laws, rules on quasi-contract or even company laws impose limits on selfish creditor behavior in a workout setting—for the benefit of the creditor community. These rules may be used to develop a system of “creditor cooperation duties” to stabilize a corporate workout. Under certain specified conditions, creditors would no longer be free to “do what they want” in a workout setting. They would be obliged to negotiate a restructuring plan in good faith, and they might even have to agree to such a plan. We explore this idea by investigating the legal regime governing workouts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany.
Lydia Tsioli, King's College London
Viability Assessment: Models and filtering mechanisms from U.S. Chapter 11 to the European Directive
Short CVs
Lydia Tsioli is a PhD in Law Candidate at King's College London as well as a Qualified Lawyer at the Athens Bar Association. From January till July 2020 she has been a Visiting Researcher at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
Distinguishing viable companies from non-viable ones is at the epicentre of the law of corporate distress. Providing for frameworks that facilitate the restructuring of financially distressed yet viable companies, while at the same time succeed in filtering out non-viable ones towards liquidation has always been a real challenge for legislators. At European level, despite the numerous references of the directive on restructuring and insolvency to the notion of viability, the latter has not yet received equally high levels of attention in Europe compared to the United States, a leading jurisdiction in this field. In building a true rescue culture upon correct foundations across Europe, a close reflection on the notion of viability, especially on a comparative basis, would thus be beneficial.
As such, this paper takes as a starting point the intricate notion of viability, its meaning and role for a corporate debt restructuring framework, as well as what these two signify for the scope of such a framework. It then presents the different existing models of viability assessment and subsequently focuses on what the author defines as the “filtering mechanisms” employed by one of these models. More specifically, the paper investigates the filtering mechanisms embedded into U.S. Chapter 11 and juxtaposes these with the provisions of the European directive on restructuring and insolvency with the aim to evaluate the latter under the comparative light of Chapter 11.
In developing the above, the paper uses both legislative provisions and extensive case law in order to demonstrate how the notion of viability both permeates Chapter 11 and constitutes the “litmus test” underlying the filtering mechanisms embedded into its framework. These conclusions serve as a springboard for a close look at the provisions of the European directive. Through this, the paper evaluates the European framework and puts forward suggestions for its interpretation/potential reform in order for it to achieve an effective filtering of viable companies from non-viable ones.
Stabilizing Corporate Workouts (Out-Of-Court Restructurings) in Times of the COVID 19-Pandemic and Beyond: The Case for Creditor Cooperation Duties
Short CVs
Horst Eidenmüller is a Statutory Professor for Commercial Law at the University of Oxford and a Professorial Fellow of St. Hugh’s College, Oxford. He is a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute and a Member of the Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. Full details are here .
Kristin van Zwieten is Clifford Chance Associate Professor of Law and Finance at the University of Oxford and the Gullifer Fellow at Harris Manchester College, Oxford. She is Director of the Commercial Law Centre at Harris Manchester College and a Research Member of the European Corporate Governance Institute. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
In this paper, we investigate the case for creditor cooperation duties in corporate workouts. We demonstrate how such duties could facilitate beneficial out-of-court restructurings and what their doctrinal basis is or could be in key jurisdictions (United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Germany).
The COVID 19-Pandemic causes financial distress for firms on an unprecedented scale. Millions of economically viable firms worldwide are affected. A large subset of these firms will need to be restructured. Workouts (out-of-court restructurings) are preferred to court-supervised processes because they involve much lower direct and indirect insolvency costs. But workouts are inherently unstable: they are based on consent and may be undermined by the presence of free-riders (holdouts). Creditors face a multi-party prisoners’ dilemma. Cooperating to implement an out-of-court restructuring plan is in the interest of the creditors as a whole (and in the interest of the debtor). However, each creditor has an incentive to hold out and freeride on the contributions of others.
Laws governing corporate workouts differ. Creditor autonomy and contractual freedom are central to the workout regimes in many jurisdictions. At the same time, at least in some jurisdictions, tort laws, rules on quasi-contract or even company laws impose limits on selfish creditor behavior in a workout setting—for the benefit of the creditor community. These rules may be used to develop a system of “creditor cooperation duties” to stabilize a corporate workout. Under certain specified conditions, creditors would no longer be free to “do what they want” in a workout setting. They would be obliged to negotiate a restructuring plan in good faith, and they might even have to agree to such a plan. We explore this idea by investigating the legal regime governing workouts in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany.
Lydia Tsioli, King's College London
Viability Assessment: Models and filtering mechanisms from U.S. Chapter 11 to the European Directive
Short CVs
Lydia Tsioli is a PhD in Law Candidate at King's College London as well as a Qualified Lawyer at the Athens Bar Association. From January till July 2020 she has been a Visiting Researcher at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law. Full details are here .
Paper Abstract
Distinguishing viable companies from non-viable ones is at the epicentre of the law of corporate distress. Providing for frameworks that facilitate the restructuring of financially distressed yet viable companies, while at the same time succeed in filtering out non-viable ones towards liquidation has always been a real challenge for legislators. At European level, despite the numerous references of the directive on restructuring and insolvency to the notion of viability, the latter has not yet received equally high levels of attention in Europe compared to the United States, a leading jurisdiction in this field. In building a true rescue culture upon correct foundations across Europe, a close reflection on the notion of viability, especially on a comparative basis, would thus be beneficial.
As such, this paper takes as a starting point the intricate notion of viability, its meaning and role for a corporate debt restructuring framework, as well as what these two signify for the scope of such a framework. It then presents the different existing models of viability assessment and subsequently focuses on what the author defines as the “filtering mechanisms” employed by one of these models. More specifically, the paper investigates the filtering mechanisms embedded into U.S. Chapter 11 and juxtaposes these with the provisions of the European directive on restructuring and insolvency with the aim to evaluate the latter under the comparative light of Chapter 11.
In developing the above, the paper uses both legislative provisions and extensive case law in order to demonstrate how the notion of viability both permeates Chapter 11 and constitutes the “litmus test” underlying the filtering mechanisms embedded into its framework. These conclusions serve as a springboard for a close look at the provisions of the European directive. Through this, the paper evaluates the European framework and puts forward suggestions for its interpretation/potential reform in order for it to achieve an effective filtering of viable companies from non-viable ones.
Academic Forum sponsored by
Joint Conference on Applicable Law in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings
Date
18-09-2020
Location
Zagreb, Croatia
European Commission DG Justice and Consumers, Ministry of Justice Croatia, Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb and INSOL Europe
Joint Conference on Applicable Law in Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings
Friday 18-Saturday 19 September 2020, National and University Library, Hrvatske Bratske Zajednice 4, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia
.jpg)
This conference, on applicable law in cross-border insolvency proceedings, builds on the framework in the European Insolvency Regulation. Anticipating the possibility of further work by the European Commission within the insolvency area, this conference seeks to explore contemporary legal views about the critical issues facing the identification of the appropriate law to apply to transactions, procedures and litigation within insolvency.> Download the conference brochure
Interest has also been shown by UNCITRAL in work on the topic of applicable law with a colloquium being provisionally scheduled for 11 December in Vienna immediately after the Working Group V session. It is the intention of the organisers of the Zagreb event to present a report on any findings and conclusions arising from the Zagreb event to UNCITRAL on that occasion.
Jointly organised by the European Commission DG Justice and Consumers, the Ministry of Justice of Croatia, the Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb and INSOL Europe, this conference will feature specialists from the international insolvency, private international law and other relevant fields.
Hosted in Zagreb, a vibrant city and capital of the latest member state of the European Union, the conference will take place at the premises of the National and University Library over a day and a half.Further information on the agenda and a registration facility will be available shortly at the dedicated conference website.
ERA Workshop on Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings Webinar
Date
08-07-2020
Location
Online Webinar
Workshop on Cross-Border Insolvency Proceedings
Webinar on 8-10 July 2020 (Afternoon sessions)
Language: English
Key topics
- Practical aspects of cross-border insolvency proceedings
- How to apply the EU Insolvency Regulation
- National insolvency laws and recent measures in the coronavirus crisis
- The new Directive on restructuring and insolvency and its impact
- Set-off and netting
- Brexit and insolvency
Further information can be found in the seminar programme.
Participants will also receive a 10% voucher towards a face to face event and free access to ERA's catalogue of e-presentations, both valid until the end of 2021.
ERA is one of the most established training providers on European law, and they have been committed to offering training on European law for more than 25 years. The organisation is partially funded by the European Union, and their courses attract legal practitioners from all over Europe from various professional groups and sectors.
POSTPONED: INSOL Europe / INSOLAD Joint Conference
Date
11-06-2020
Location
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
This event has now been postponed.