Preventive restructuring - Is Ireland a leader in the EU?

In this paper, Aoife Finnerty considers a preventive restructuring process unique to Ireland, the Examinership Procedure, in light of the Preventive Restructuring Directive (PRD). The paper discusses whether Ireland is indeed a leader in European preventive restructuring given the existence of the Examinership Procedure for the past 30 years. The paper continues to consider some challenges that might arise with the implementation of the PRD, given the variance in domestic approaches to preventive restructuring pre-PRD and the expected difficulty with harmonising laws with such different starting positions

JCOERE Consortium. Report 1: Identifying substantive and procedural rules in preventive restructuring frameworks including the Preventive Restructuring Directive which may be incompatible with judicial co-operation obligations

Judicial Co-operation Supporting Economic Recovery in Europe (JCOERE).This report provides a comprehensive analysis of the nature of substantive and procedural aspects that may arise in complex preventive restructuring or rescue regimes as envisaged by the Preventive Restructuring Directive (2019/1023). The report includes a comparative analysis of eleven European Member State jurisdictions, considering their pre-existing systems and approaches, and their responses taken to the Preventive Restructuring Directive

Special Report: Judicial Co-Operation in the European Union: Insolvency and Rescue

Judicial Co-Operation for Economic Recovery in Europe (JCOERE) is a research action project funded by the EU Commission DG Justice. JCOERE focuses on substantive and procedural rules typical to restructuring frameworks that are likely to present obstacles to court co-operation as mandated by the European Insolvency Regulation Recast. In its first Report (JCOERE 1) the Project surveys a range of rescue frameworks in European jurisdictions, benchmarked against core concepts in the Preventive Restructuring Directive. In its second phase, engaging proactively with national EU judiciary, JCOERE will document experiences with co-operation including utilisation of co-operation guidelines. It will disseminate its findings to support co-operation in corporate rescue. This report summarises the first steps and some of the preliminary findings that are fully described in JCOERE Report 1

JCOERE Consortium. Report 2: Report on Judicial Co-operation in Preventive Restructuring and Insolvency in the EU – Substantive and procedural harmonisation, judicial practice and guidelines

Judicial Co-operation Supporting Economic Recovery in Europe (JCOERE)The second JCOERE Report analyses the co-operation obligations arising from the EIR Recast, which are imposed on courts and practitioners in EU Member States to co-operate in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters. This Report undertakes a benchmarking of judicial utilisation and awareness of best practice guidelines for co-operation in cross-border insolvency and preventive restructuring cases that have been adopted by European and international organisations. Report 2 also considers broader questions, such as differences in judicial culture across the EU Member States, how this impacts mutual trust and effective cooperation, and how the obligations and broader initiatives concerning judicial co-operation are fundamental to the question of European integration and harmonisation. A comparative analysis of judicial co-operation in another federalised jurisdiction has also been undertaken in this report, between the European Union and the United States

Looking East and West on advance decision-making in pregnancy: the pregnant advance directive holder in Irish, English and New York state law

In Western society, the point in a woman’s life when she routinely ceases having control over her person in a treatment context – if such a point in time arises – is pregnancy. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015 typifies this, providing that advance directives intended to apply in pregnancy be referred for High Court adjudication. The singling out of pregnant women for special treatment where their bodily integrity and self-determination are concerned did not suddenly start with this Act. Instead, impingement on the interests of pregnant women has existed in many domestic legal frameworks for decades. This research discusses the development of such laws and the underpinning moral issues to explain why the Irish legislature drafted the Act in this manner. In doing so, it highlights the many and varied issues – ethical and legal – with the position adopted. Perhaps obvious, but it is only by describing the law applicable to non-pregnant individuals that the extent of these ‘pregnancy exceptions’ are fully articulated. Aiding this exposition, is a discussion of the law in other jurisdictions, namely England and Wales and New York State (and the greater United States). The Irish legislature was undoubtedly guided by the now-repealed 8th Amendment to the Irish Constitution, which protected the right to life of the unborn, however, there is a wealth of international law demonstrating that in pregnancy, exceptions have always been made to the usual rules governing medical treatment. These exceptions can be explicit in laws prohibiting life sustaining treatment from being withdrawn from pregnant women, despite their wishes. Or, they can be more subtle in laws that allow, however inadvertently, for consent to treatment to be coerced. Spanning seven chapters, this thesis comprehensively discusses informed consent, end-of-life decision-making, advance directives and critically, how the law operates in these areas when the individual is pregnant