European Restructuring Monitor (ERM)
Eurofound's ERM database on restructuring-related legal regulations provides information on regulations in the Member States of the European Union and Norway which are explicitly or implicitly linked to anticipating and managing change.
44a-44z
The process of preventive restructuring can be applied to debtors – small, medium and large companies (i.e. to companies with more than 10 employees) which are deemed at risk of becoming insolvent within a one year timeframe. The intention of the preventive restructuring procedure is to enable the debtor who may become insolvent within a period of one year to carry out appropriate measures aimed at restructuring its financial liabilities and other part of its business necessary to eliminate the causes of eventual future insolvency. The procedure can only be started by the company on the basis of a restructuring plan, agreed on by at least 30% of the creditors (holding at least 30% aggregate value of financial claims listed in the debtor’s list of financial claims and certified by an auditor).
The restructuring plan has to include:
At least 30% of the creditors can demand the refusal of a restructuring plan. The court decides upon the commencement of a preventive restructuring proceeding within eight days. There is no appointed administrator in this process. During the preventive restructuring proceeding a standstill applies for the claims of creditors.
The procedure of preventive restructuring is not allowed:
However, exceptions apply to cases 1 and 3 if 75% of creditors agree to join the preventive restructuring procedure.
The company has to present an 'master restructuring agreement' within three months (for small and medium-sized companies) or five months (for large companies) agreed on by at least 75% of all creditors unless the restructuring plan stipulates a higher quota. This period can be extended for two or three months respectively. Debtor and creditors may freely agree on whatever measures enacted in the agreement, but finally the agreement must be approved by a certified auditor. The court’s confirmation of the 'master restructuring agreement' simultaneously extends the validity of the agreement to the financial claims of those creditors who have not given their consent to the agreement. However, the mandatory effects of the court-confirmed agreement only extend to the restructuring measures.
Preventive restructuring proceeding is a relatively new measure, introduced in 2013 (ZFPPIPP-F, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 100/2013), but there are already several high-profile cases. Ulčar and Prinčič (2017) describe some master restructuring agreements reached between debtors and their creditors, for example; ACH, a Slovenian holding company in the tourism, mobile homes production and car dealership sectors, and TUŠ Holding, a food retailer. Both companies succeeded in obtaining the 'master restructuring agreement' by agreeing to sell non-core assets of their companies. ACH successfully disinvested and managed to pay its liabilities much before the deadline, while TUŠ agreed to significant disinvestment by 2021. However, two other prominent companies Sava, a major hotel business, and Thermana Laško, a wellness operator, were not able to convince a sufficient number of creditors and both ended up facing compulsory settlement procedures.
Eurofound (2016), Slovenia: Rescue procedures in insolvency, Restructuring legislation database, Dublin, https://apps.eurofound.europa.eu/legislationdb/rescue-procedures-in-insolvency/slovenia
This Eurofound research paper explores key trends in restructuring in recent years, highlighting the companies that announced the largest job losses and job gains in the EU. It builds on an analysis of company announcements recorded in Eurofound’s European Restructuring Monitor (ERM), alongside a new classification of restructuring events involving changes in company location.
:quality(80))
Employers increasingly use tools such as email, SMS and messaging apps like WhatsApp or Signal to communicate with employees. While these technologies offer both efficiency and convenience, their use in communicating sensitive information, particularly for notifying employees of dismissal, raises legal concerns. This article explores the legal framework on dismissals across the EU, with a special focus on the use of digital means for communicating employment dismissals. Drawing on examples from various Member States, it examines the legal validity of digital dismissals.
:quality(80))
In 2023, thousands of workers in big tech lost their jobs. Meta, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft and Salesforce had been considered to offer good and secure jobs up to this point. Giants of the information and communication technology (ICT) sector, these companies are among the highest paying, with Eurostat data from 2022 indicating that workers in ICT had the second-highest median gross hourly earnings (surpassed only by earnings in the financial sector).[1] These layoffs were a shock, especially as the biggest companies had hired extensively during the COVID-19 pandemic. What happened in the two years after this redundancy wave – was that the end of the cuts or did the companies start expanding again?
:quality(80))
In 2024, the automotive sector in the EU came to the fore in public and policy discussions. The focus was on the slowdown in electric vehicle (EV) sales, rising global competition, belated investments in new technologies, and the potential closure of production lines in Europe. A number of European car manufacturers and suppliers announced their intention to make large-scale redundancies and change long-standing collective agreements on job security and wages, while workers raised concerns amid demonstrations and industrial action.
:quality(80))