Academic literature on the topic 'Claims in insolvency proceedings'

The study “Creditor claims in the insolvency proceedings of a legal entity” contains analysis of the legal norms that prescribe the filing and verification of creditor claims, decisions adopted by administrator concerning creditor claims, as well as the procedure for filing of creditor claims and complaints related to the acknowledging, waiver or partial acknowledging of creditor claims. The issue of creditor claims in the insolvency proceedings of legal entities is studied in details on the basis of the legal regulations and conclusions of application theory and practice. The study contains no analysis of the regulations applicable to the insolvency of the participants of finance and capital market whereas they are supervised in accordance with the requirements of regulatory acts by the Financial and Capital Market Commission and their activities are governed by special legal norms. Even though the issue of creditor claims has been earlier discussed in the insolvency law science of Latvia, authors of the relevant studies have discussed them in brief. This leads to conclusion that the issue of creditor claims is topical and that theoretical and practical study thereof is significant for insolvency law of the present day. Empiric base of the study comprises scientist works and article collection materials, periodical materials and sources, legal acts, Internet resources and other publicly available information. The approaches used in exploring the study include analytical, comparative and deductive research methods. The study is developed with the following structure (the questions of study also represent parts of this work): 1) General description of filing creditor claims; Formal legal requirements applicable to creditor claims; 3) Status of creditor and complaints concerning claims.

In this paper, the author analyses the Insolvency Act's provisions on mediation. Firstly, the author points out the existence of a special legal regime for mediation of disputes related to the determination of claims, which differs from the general regime of mediation. Afterwards, the provisions on initiating mediation proceedings are analysed, with the special emphasis on the persons authorized to submit proposal for resolving a dispute in the mediation procedure according to the provisions of the Insolvency Act as well as the role of the creditors' committee in this regard. Then, the author analyses the issue of the duration and termination of mediation, pointing out the inconsistencies of the domestic solution. Furthermore, the issue of the costs of mediation proceedings in connection with insolvency proceedings is addressed shortly. In conclusion, the author advocates the abolition of restrictions on active legitimacy for submitting proposals for resolving disputes through mediation, prescribing additional competencies of the creditors' committee at the final stage of the mediation procedure in relation to the disputed claims in which the insolvency administrator participates, and providing a single regime of mediation for disputes regarding insolvency proceedings resolution.

Secured claims have priority over other claims in the event of debtor insolvency with respect to the distribution of the debtor’s encumbered assets. Numerous writings have discussed the necessity of security instruments in the context of growth and development of the economy. Credit is indeed necessary for the economy’s development, but, at the same time, credit is the cause of insolvency. This can be put another way: efficient credit develops the economy, while inefficient credit causes insolvency. The author argues on this basis that restriction of the secured creditor’s rights in insolvency proceedings means not less credit but more effective credit. A security-holder whose rights are limited is going to lend more responsibly and monitor the activity of the debtor more intensively and effectively, because the risk of loss would otherwise increase. Better monitoring should lead also to earlier intervention by the secured creditor in the actions of the debtor, which can be expected to increase the number of cases of rescue of debtors headed for insolvency. The author suggests the option of removing a small amount from the secured creditor and distributing it among the unsecured creditors to make the credit system more efficient and reduce injustice. Implementing this option would not harm the interests of the secured creditor as much as it helps to render the whole system more efficient.

In this scientific article, the author discloses the definition of insolvency as a substantive legal basis for opening bankruptcy proceedings. It is emphasized that the grounds for initiating bankruptcy proceedings enshrined in the Bankruptcy Procedure Code are not consistent with the concept of insolvency of the debtor, which is enshrined in part one of Article 1 of this Code, as their combined application does not require establishing the debtor's ability to meet its monetary obligations. to creditors after the due date solely through the application of bankruptcy proceedings. It is established that the courts do not establish the facts of the debtor's signs of insolvency, taking into account the concept of insolvency, which is enshrined in law. It is alleged that the postponement of the moment of proving insolvency to the stage of disposition of the debtor's property is the cause of cases of unreasonable application to the debtor of the consequences of bankruptcy proceedings, namely, a moratorium on creditors' claims, restriction of the debtor to decide on his property. It is emphasized that the existing legal position of the Supreme Court on the moment of establishing the solvency of the debtor is unconstructive, as it allows the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against debtors who have no signs of insolvency, but simply perform their obligations in bad faith. It is noted that insolvency is an economic category, requires knowledge of the balance sheet of the enterprise, the economic component of its assets and liabilities, and so on. In order to establish the facts of bankruptcy, fictitious bankruptcy or hidden bankruptcy, it is proposed to conduct a mandatory economic examination of the debtor before initiating bankruptcy proceedings.

Abstract Europe is experiencing the rise of restructuring proceedings, which has recently culminated in the adoption of the Restructuring Directive. While being a major achievement in harmonising substantive (pre)insolvency law in the EU, it lacks rules targeting restructuring of multinational enterprise groups. As a result, effectiveness of group reorganisations may be undermined. Nevertheless, some jurisdictions adopt innovative tools, facilitating group solutions. Among them – third-party releases. Such releases entail a total or partial discharge or amendment of claims against third parties, such as co-obligors, guarantors and collateral providers (typically, group members) in the insolvency or restructuring proceeding of the principal debtor.The diversity of approaches to third-party releases highlights their controversial nature. Such releases may frustrate legitimate expectations of creditors relying on cross-guarantees and other forms of cross-liability arrangements. Extending the effects of debt reorganisation to third parties in the absence of a separate insolvency proceeding may also run contrary to the longstanding views on corporate insolvency and entity shielding. This article argues that a single-entity-restructuring risks being short-sighted and that third-party releases are a matter of commercial necessity, synchronising legal responses with actual business models and better addressing the complexity of group interdependencies, realised through various intra-group liability arrangements.

The claims are rights in personam but the assignment of claims has a hybrid nature. Abolishing the “nomina ossibus inhaerent” rule has increased commercial significance of the assignment of claims. However, the contemporary legal situationleaves parties with great legal uncertainty, as to the question under which circumstances does the cross — borders assignment is valid. A recent judgment of the CJEU of 9 October 2019 (C — 548/18) in case BGL BNP Paribas SA v. TeamBank AG Nürnberg has augmented this uncertainty. The Luxemburg Court ruled that: “Article 14 of the Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 (‘Rome I’) must be interpreted as not designating, directly or by analogy, the applicable law concerning the third-party effects of the assignment of a claim in the event of multiple assignments of the claim by the same creditor to successive assignees”. In this situation, one would highly welcome an attempt to establish a new set of conflict of laws rules relating to the law applicable to third — parties effects of the assignment of claims. This attempt has recently been made by the European Commission in its Report “on the question of the effectiveness of an assignment or subrogation of a claim against third parties and the priority of the assigned or subrogated claim over the right of another person”, dated 29 September 2016. In the present article, the author reviews the most important propositions formulated in the conflicts’ doctrine through the “lens” of the international insolvency law. Multiply provisions of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast) — despite many judgments of the CJEU in this area — also lack certainty. Insolvency is a foreseeable risk, but without clear rules concerning the third parties’ effects of the assignment of claims, it may become unenforceable for the creditors of the assignor.

The article is devoted to some aspects and problems of reforms in Russian insolvency proceedings these days. Changes are connected with the procedural arrangements of consideration of the crucial detached disputes — disputes over including claims into the list of creditors. The author comes to the conclusion of necessity to honor peculiarities and value of the acts of court as a legal phenomenon whilst changing law.

Abstract The early regression of the fidejussor implies his ability to "turn" against the debtor even before he pays something to the creditor „To turn against“ in the sense of the new Civil Code, does not mean the right to actually receive a payment before the fidejussor has paid, at least in part, the claim of the creditor in whose favor he has guaranteed. The same principle applies in insolvency proceedings where the fidejussor, who has not paid anything yet, may exercise early regression, but his claim against the debtor will be a potential, conditional one, reason for which it will be included in the debt table under suspensive condition, without voting rights.

One of the main novelties of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures was the introduction in Ukraine of the institution of bankruptcy of individuals, which was a long-awaited event among scientists and practitioners. It has been more than a year since the introduction of the institution of bankruptcy of individuals in Ukraine, and in some Economic Courts there are not even 10 cases of insolvency of individuals. There are many reasons for this: the high cost of the procedure, the complexity of paperwork to open proceedings, as well as a number of problematic and conflicting issues that arise in practice relevant legislative provisions. The purpose of the article is to identify problematic aspects in the legal regulation of bankruptcy of individuals and the practice of applying the relevant provisions of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, as well as to develop proposals to improve legislation in this area. Given the relatively small number of lawsuits to restore the solvency of individuals in Economic Courts, today it is necessary to state the lack of a unified approach of national commercial courts to most of the problematic issues that arise during the consideration of this category of cases. It is emphasized that since the opening of insolvency proceedings, the debtor — an individual and his family members are under the close attention of the Economic Court and the arbitral trustee, who must examine in detail all the circumstances that caused the insolvency of an individual. Based on the analysis of case law, it is established that the practice of most Economic Courts, especially Appellate, shows the absence of a legal requirement to pay court fees by the debtor for filing an application to open insolvency proceedings, and the application of requirements to the application to open proceedings insolvency of an individual of the general requirements provided for in Art. 34 of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures, is inappropriate in this part. Prohibition of the debtor’s departure abroad is a measure to ensure creditors’ claims, which should not be applied automatically in all cases, but only when it is proved that the debtor intentionally acted to prevent the procedures provided for him by the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures. As a result of the study, the author concludes that an individual entrepreneur has a number of unjustified preferences, compared to legal entities, to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, which is not fair in terms of equality of all entities and causes unequal position of creditors of legal entities and creditors of individuals — entrepreneurs.

The Bankruptcy Proceedings Code of Ukraine provides for the possibility of imposing liability under the obligations of the debtor – a legal person on the founders (stakeholders, shareholders) or other persons who have the right to give mandatory instructions to the debtor or have the opportunity to otherwise determine his actions. As a result, "comfortable" organizational forms of companies, such as LLCs and JSCs, have become risky for investors; managers, who may be employees, bear risk too. The article analyzes the legislation of the EU and some EU member states (Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands, Latvia, Romania), concerning the liability of individuals in insolvency proceedings. We find that the rules on such liability are not harmonized at the EU level; as for individual countries, their laws do provide for the possibility of holding both de jure and de facto directors, whereas the latter may include the founders (stakeholders, shareholders) of the company, for the debts of the company. At the same time, the legislation of European countries describes in great detail the conditions and procedure for imposing such liability, which makes the risks for the individuals concerned predictable. Moreover, special rules on liability in insolvency proceedings are systematically linked to the provisions of company law, which establish the obligation of directors to act with due diligence in the interests of the company and liability for knowingly making business transactions with the knowledge that the company is insolvent (wrongful trading). In Ukraine, there are absolutely no specific legal provisions on the conditions and procedure for holding even de jure directors to liable in insolvency proceedings, not to mention the founders (stakeholders, shareholders) of companies, which creates a situation of legal uncertainty. To eliminate it, the legislation of Ukraine should define: the range of individuals on whom such liability may be imposed; a specific list of actions, the commission of which may give rise to liability; the need to prove the guilt of such individuals; forms of guilt sufficient to be held liable (only intent or also negligence); procedural rules for establishing guilt, including the issue of the burden of proof; who may lay claim to a director (insolvency administrator, creditor, court); statutes of limitations on the liability of directors, etc.