Activities of Evelyn REGNER related to 2011/2006(INI)
Legal basis opinions (0)
Amendments (19)
Amendment 3 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Aa. whereas the overriding aim of reviewing insolvency law at European level should be to prevent forum shopping and whereas competing main proceedings should be avoided,
Amendment 4 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is concerned, howeverof the opinion, that greater harmonisation may have a negapositive impact on Member States' competitiveness and, therefore, on potential employment opportunities; disparities between national insolvency and restructuring laws create obstacles, competitive advantages and/or disadvantages or difficulties for companies with cross-border activities or ownership within the EU; harmonisation of insolvency regimes will further promote a level playing field, remove obstacles to a successful restructuring of insolvent companies and preserve employment;
Amendment 6 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital F
Recital F
F. whereas since the entry into force of the Insolvency Regulation many changes have taken place, 15 new Member States have joined the Union, the capital of companies has evolved, and the phenomenon of groups of companies has increased enormously,
Amendment 7 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 10 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital J
Recital J
J. whereas insolvency law should also lay down rules for the winding-up of a company in a way which is the least harmful and the most beneficial for all participants once it is established that the corporate rescue is likely to fail or has failed,
Amendment 13 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital K a (new)
Recital K a (new)
Ka. whereas where groups of companies become insolvent, a recovery is currently difficult to achieve in the EU, due to the differences in Member States’ rules, thus endangering thousands of jobs,
Amendment 16 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital L
Recital L
L. whereas the creation of an EU database ofnetworking of national insolvency registers and the creation of a generally accessible and comprehensive system for seeking information about insolvency proceedings would allow creditors, shareholders, employees and courts to determine whether insolvency proceedings have been opened in another Member State and the deadlines and details for the presentation of claims; whereas this would promote cost-effective administration and increase transparency,
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Takes the view that Directive 2008/94/EC has met its objective ofis ensuring a minimum degree of protection for employees in the event of insolvency, whilst maintaining adequate flexibility for Member States; however, is very concerned about the low ceilings and very short time limits set by Member States under the possibility offered by Articles 4(2) and 4(3), which gives as a result a large number of workers with unpaid wages exceeding the limits set by national law; stresses that the wording of Articles 4(2) and 4(3) in particular is very vague and leaves a considerable amount of discretion to Member States to significantly water down their obligations under the Directive; considers that a revision of these provisions should be envisaged;
Amendment 25 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 25 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – part 1 – point 1.1 – indent 7
Annex – part 1 – point 1.1 – indent 7
– as far as mandatory filing for bankruptcy by the debtor is concerned, the proceedings must be opened within a period of between one and two months after the cessation of payments, provided that adequate capital is held to cover the insolvency proceedings;
Amendment 27 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – part 1 – point 1.4 – indent 1
Annex – part 1 – point 1.4 – indent 1
– the liquidator must be approved by a competent authority of a Member State or appointed by a Member-State court which has jurisdiction, must be of good repute and must have the educational background needed for the performance of his/her duties;
Amendment 30 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
Amendment 31 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – part 1 – point 1.5 – title
Annex – part 1 – point 1.5 – title
1.5. Recommendation on the harmonisation of aspects of restructuring plans where groups of companies become insolvent
Amendment 35 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – part 2 – point 2.2
Annex – part 2 – point 2.2
The European Parliament considers that the Insolvency Regulation should include a definition of the term ‘centre of main interest’. The European Parliament suggests that the wording of Recital 13 as clarified by the case-law of the Ca formal definition should be inserted, based on the wording of Recital 13, which is concerned with the objective possibility for third parties to ascertain it. The European Parliament considers that the definition should take accournt of Justice be used as a formal definition to be included in Article 2such features as the externally ascertainable principal transaction of business operations, the location of assets, the maintenance of office space, the residence of employees, etc.
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Takes the view that an information centre on cross-border insolvency proceedings should be established that will maintain an electronic insolvency register with information on the opening of proceedings and the basic features of insolvency procedure law, in order to facilitate the enforcement of claims;
Amendment 38 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9 a. Is of the opinion, that the scope of application of the Directive 2008/94/EC, in particular the understanding of ‘outstanding claim’ is too wide as a number of Member States apply a narrow definition of remuneration (e.g.: excluding severance pay, bonuses, reimbursement arrangements, etc.) that can result in the non-fulfilment of considerable claims;
Amendment 38 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex – part 3 – point 1 – subpoint E
Annex – part 3 – point 1 – subpoint E
E. If the assets of the group are so confused that the estates cannot be kept separate, substantivit is impossible to determine which assets belong to which debtor, or if poor accounting undermines a proper assessment of inter-company claims, recourse should exceptionally be had to the aggregation should applyof estates.
Amendment 40 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Takes the view that exemptions from the scope of Directive 2008/94/EC on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer should be avoided as far as possible;
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 b (new)
Paragraph 9 b (new)