Примеры использования Enterprise group context на Английском языке и их переводы на Русский язык
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
That approach will also apply to the treatment of secured creditors in the enterprise group context.
In an enterprise group context, one group member may be a shadow director of another group member.
Few insolvency laws specifically address subordination of equity claims in the enterprise group context.
In an enterprise group context for example, group members may have an interest in the assets of other group members.
Purpose of legislative provisions The purpose of provisions relating to reorganization plans in an enterprise group context is.
Centre of main interests in the enterprise group context(including international aspects such as jurisdiction, access and recognition); directors' obligations in the group context. .
Purpose of legislative provisions The purpose of provisions on the appointment of insolvency representatives in an enterprise group context is.
Treatment of intellectual property rights in the enterprise group context is also an issue; for example, one subsidiary may own the intellectual property rights of the entire group. .
The Working Group agreed that the provisions of the Legislative Guide with respect to reorganization plans would apply in the enterprise group context.
In the enterprise group context, the shareholders of some group members with many assets and few liabilities may receive a return, while the creditors of other group members with fewer assets and more liabilities may not.
While many of the issues addressed in parts one andtwo are equally applicable to enterprise groups, there are that only apply in the enterprise group context.
In response, it was questioned whether the purpose of the provisions on post-commencement finance in the enterprise group context was, following the principle of the separate legal entity, the benefit to the individual group member or to the enterprise group overall.
With respect to failure of implementation of a reorganization plan it was agreed that recommendations 155-156 of the Legislative Guide were sufficient to address the matter in the enterprise group context.
After discussion, the Working Group agreed that a foreign representative ora representative of a solvent group member in an enterprise group context should have a right of access analogous to article 9 of the Model Law.
The Working Group agreed that it should be stated in a recommendation that the safeguards set forth in recommendations 65-67 applied to post-commencement finance provided in the enterprise group context.
A further suggestion made was to adopt a specific standard with respect to the avoidance of transactions in the enterprise group context, i.e. either a more lenient approach to such transactions than was currently taken with respect to transactions involving a single debtor or a stricter approach.
After discussion, the Working Group agreed that the purpose clause from the Legislative Guide should be included before draft recommendations 9-13 andfurther paragraphs should be added to reflect the provision of post-commencement finance in the enterprise group context.
It was indicated that the treatment of avoidance in the enterprise group context should take into consideration the difference between, on the one hand, reorganization proceedings and sale of the entity as a going concern in liquidation proceedings and, on the other hand, piecemeal sale of the assets in liquidation.
After discussion, the Working Group agreed that draft recommendation 14 should be retained with the words"related persons in an enterprise group context" being replaced with the words"enterprise group members.
It was observed that although recommendation 13 of the Legislative Guide referred the issue of the competent court to the local insolvency law,it might not be sufficient to address the issue of judicial competence over a joint application in the enterprise group context.
It was suggested that although the purpose clause relating to post-commencement finance from the Legislative Guide was relevant,it did not specifically address the enterprise group context and, in particular, the provision of finance by one member of a group to support another member of that group. .
It was widely agreed that draft recommendation 211 should state the general principle with respect to provision of post-commencement finance in the enterprise group context and include references to the granting of a security interest and a guarantee or other assurance and that the conditions attaching to the provision of such finance should be set forth in a separate recommendation.
A different approach suggested taking the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency asthe starting point and considering how it might be supplemented to address the enterprise group context, following the Working Group's approach with the Legislative Guide.
Consideration of these scenarios gave rise to various issues, including the reasons for seeking recognition, the suitability of thedistinction between main and non-main proceedings in the enterprise group context based on the concept of COMI, questions of jurisdiction, appropriate safeguards for creditors, and the relationship of recognition to other possible solutions for enterprise group insolvency.
In light of those considerations,the Working Group agreed that it would be helpful to have the next steps taken informally in an expert group whose task would be to examine how part four of the Legislative Guide could be applied in the enterprise group context and any additional issues(such as conflicts between a director's duty to its own company and the interests of the group and issues of governing law) that might need to be addressed.
Concerns were also raised with respect to the difficulty of applying those factors in the context of an enterprise group.
Where the treatment of an issue in the context of an enterprise group is the same as discussed above, it is not repeated in this part.
The Working Group agreed on the importance of considering the issue of recognition, butnoted that it needed to be considered in the context of different scenarios of enterprise group insolvency and how it might be used in such scenarios.
However, the mere fact of a special relationship with the debtor,including, in the group context, membership of the same enterprise group, may not be sufficient in all cases to justify special treatment of a creditor's claim, especially since to do so can in turn disadvantage the creditors of that creditor.
Recommendations 87-99, relating to avoidance,would generally apply to avoidance of transactions in the context of an enterprise group, although additional considerations may apply to transactions between group members because of the group structure and the different relationships that group members may have to each other.