3 Amendments of Julie GIRLING related to 2011/2006(INI)
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Believes that although insolvency law differs across Member States, natural convergences do exist; calls therefore on the Commission to focus more on the facilitation of exchange of best practice between Member States in order to establish good insolvency policy and practices across the EU rather than seeking to harmonise insolvency law;
Amendment 49 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9 b. Having regard to Directive 2008/94/EC on the protection of employees in case of insolvency of the employer;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 c (new)
Paragraph 9 c (new)
9 c. Recognises the current lack of harmonisation with regard to the ranking of creditors which reduces the predictability of the outcomes of judicial proceedings; Calls on the Commission to consider the arguments in favour of proposing a legislative initiative to harmonise the priority of creditors claims, liens, mortgages and other guarantees which would simplify the current rules on insolvency and restructuring and remove any incentives for parties to move to other jurisdictions with more favourable judicial proceedings; Notes however, that any attempts to harmonise the rules relating to retention of title, creditors with the rights of recession, the role of creditors who are connected parties, administrative expenses and the rules on set-off is neither desirable nor feasible at European level;