Gotowa bibliografia na temat „Insolvency proceedings”

AbstractThe decade since the financial crisis has witnessed a proliferation of various ‘light touch’ financial restructuring techniques in the form of so-called pre-insolvency proceedings. These proceedings inhabit a space on the spectrum of insolvency and restructuring law, somewhere between a pure contractual workout, the domain of contract law, and a formal insolvency or rehabilitation proceeding, the domain of insolvency law. While, to date, international insolvency instruments have tended to define insolvency proceedings quite expansively, discussion of the cross-border implications of pre-insolvency proceedings has barely begun. The question is whether pre-insolvency proceedings should qualify as proceedings related to insolvency for the purpose of private international law characterization. The risk is over-inclusivity of cross-border insolvency law, which, where it is based on universality and unity, might defeat contractual expectations. This article argues, however, that we should be slow to exclude pre-insolvency proceedings from cross-border insolvency law: these proceedings are initiated in the zone of insolvency, their effectiveness depends on a statutory mandate and not purely on private ordering, they interact and intersect with formal proceedings, and can benefit from the unique system developed by cross-border insolvency law. We suggest, though, that modified universalism (the leading norm of cross-border insolvency) and international insolvency instruments, should, and are able to, adjust to the peculiarities of pre-insolvency proceedings to address concerns about inclusivity and accommodate pre-insolvency proceedings adequately.

Bankruptcy Trustee in Insolvency Proceedings as an Entrepreneur and as a Subject of the Proceeding The article deals with the position and activities of bankruptcy trustee in bankruptcy proceeding, restructuring proceeding and in proceeding on debt relief. These proceedings are being called insolvency proceedings. The paper brings a closer look on conditions of trustee's activity and his/her activities in various types and stages of insolvency proceedings. The authors analyze the fact whether trustee's activity meets all attributes of enterprising.

Information about the insolvency of big enterprises such as Enron and Worldcom in the United States; Bremer Vulkan, Philip Holzmann, Babcock Borsig, CargoLifter, Walter Bau and “Ihr Platz GmbH & Co KG” in Germany; and discussion about the insolvency of States (e.g. Argentina) has awakened public interest in insolvency law and proceedings. Both the high number of insolvent enterprises and the increasing rate of consumer insolvency are shocking.The German Insolvency Act of 1999 created a uniform insolvency statute for all of Germany. In most cases, upon the instituting of insolvency proceedings, only small or no-insolvency estates were available. As a result, creditors only received average distributions of between three and five percent. Approximately three quarters of all insolvency procedures could not be instituted because of an insufficient insolvency estate. A large number of the insolvency proceedings carried out by the courts had to be terminated prematurely due to lack of assets. This deficiency in the law, referred to as the “bankruptcy of bankruptcy,” is to be remedied by the new Insolvency Act, as a failure in instituting insolvency proceedings is damaging confidence in the German economy.

AbstractCross-border transactions and resultant legal proceedings often cause problems. One major problem is knowing which law should govern the transaction and any legal proceedings. Cross-border insolvencies in the EU are subject to the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR) but this legislation does not determine which substantive insolvency law rules apply in a given insolvency. There are many differences in the insolvency rules applicable in the various EU Member States and this has caused concern in relation to the avoidance of transactions entered into by an insolvent prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings. In light of this, the paper examines options to address divergence between national avoidance rules. One option, harmonization, is analysed as well as its possible benefits and drawbacks.

Insolvency proceeding and liquidation of bankrupt companies are important topics in days of economic slowdown which affected all economies after financial crisis. This paper aims to find main differences between insolvency proceedings in the countries of Visegrad four. The main goal is to describe insolvency law in member countries and then to compare it from the poin of view of main actors. This comparison can help to find which changes and ideas could be applied to improve and make more effective the Czech insolvency system. The countries of Visegrad four was selected because of their common history and similar economic development. First of all, the legal background of insolvency proceedings which is possible for legal entities in these countries is examined. Then this paper deals with insolvency proceedings from the point of view of their participants – creditors, debtors and insolvency administrator. We have found that insolvency proceedings in these countries are very similar but there is still some inspiration for the Czech insolvency system.

Resumen: En esta sentencia, el Tribunal de Justicia contesta a una cuestión prejudicial que plantea un órgano judicial francés en el marco de un procedimiento secundario de insolvencia. El tribunal remitente quiere saber qué órgano jurisdiccional es competente para determinar los bienes sujetos al procedimiento secundario –si el juez del procedimiento principal o el del secundario– y qué ley debe aplicar el tribunal competente para establecer cuáles son esos bienes –si la ley del procedimiento principal o la ley del procedimiento secundario–.Palabras clave: insolvencia, procedimiento secundario de insolvencia, bienes del deudor.Abstract: In that judgment, the Court answers a question referred by a French court in the context of secondary insolvency proceedings. The referring court wishes to know which court is competent to determine the assets subject to the secondary proceedings – if the judge in the main proceedings or the secondary court – and which law should be applied by the competent court to establish what those assets are – if the law of main procedure or the law of the secondary procedure.Keywords: insolvency, secondary insolvency proceedings, debtor’s assets.

Abstract The title of this research is “The debtor’s property selling in the cross-border insolvency proceedings”. The insolvency proceeding gets the cross-border status also in case, if a debtor is an owner of the property outside of the main interests’ centre, namely, in another country. Therefore, there are many problematic cases when insolvency administrator (also called insolvency practitioner) defines the real estate in this other country and has to make a decision concerning the methods of selling the real estate in accordance with the law of the Member State in which territory the insolvency proceedings have been started. At the same time, the administrator shall provide that the property is sold in particular with regard to procedures for the realization of assets defined in the legislation of that country, where such real estate has been located. The article’s aim is to give a view of the features of the sale of the property in the insolvency proceedings and to define the possible lack and improvements in the cross-border insolvency concerning the selling of a debtor’s property. The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union has adopted Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of 20 May 2015 on Insolvency proceedings, which shall apply from 26 June 2017, with some exceptions Despite the regulation of the cross-border insolvency has been improved, the procedure of the property disposal is still incomplete in the cross-border insolvency proceedings. Within the study the following research methods are applied: the analytical method, comparative method, sociological method and descriptive method. The predicted value of the research is theoretical and also practical. The research should be useful for the insolvency proceedings administrators, the companies and the banks, other experts involved in the cross-border insolvency proceedings, as well as for students to improve their theoretical knowledge about the cross-border insolvency.

In this preliminary ruling (C-73/20), the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) faces again (as did in former case law), the issue of what law is applicable to detrimental acts within the course of a cross border insolvency proceeding. On this occasion, the CJEU analyses how and when, –according to the EU Private International Law (EU PIL) at hand for those proceedings, i.e.: the lex spe-cialis (articles 4 and 13 Insolvency Regulation) and the lex generalis (article 12 para 1 lit a Rome I Re-gulation)–, which one is of application to determine the law applicable to acts which can be considered as “detrimental” to all the creditors. With other words, whether it would be applicable to the detrimental act, the lex concursus which governs the insolvency proceedings as a whole or the lex contractus which governs the law to the contract which led in these detrimental acts. However, the particularity of this case which is highly significant is grounded in the different relationships of the parties as a consequence of an “alleged” assignment between the insolvent company, the original debtor and an outsider creditor to this cross-border insolvency proceeding. Something that the CJEU did not pore it over as expected.

In its simplest form, a transnational insolvency involves an insolvency1 proceeding in one country, with creditors located in at least one additional country.2 In the most complex case, it involves multiple proceedings, subsidiaries, affiliated entities, assets, operations, and creditors in dozens of nations. Complex international insolvencies continue to proliferate alongside a burgeoning world-wide free market economy that entails the globalisation of commercial and financial markets.3

The article specifies the grounds for initiating proceedings in the case of insolvency of an individual on the basis of a comprehensive comparative analysis of foreign experience, scientific literature, national legislation and practice of its application. Based on the analysis of the legislation and case law, it is noted that the Bankruptcy Code does not clearly define the term "threat of insolvency". Article 115 of the Code states that the threat of insolvency includes circumstances that confirm that in the near future the debtor will not be able to meet its monetary obligations or make normal current payments. It is argued that the lack of definition of "threat of insolvency" in the Code is a shortcoming of current legislation, and therefore this rule needs to be clarified in terms of confirming the inability of the debtor to meet financial obligations, the terms of default. It is proposed to define "threat of insolvency" as a set of documented legal grounds that indicate the inability of the debtor to meet its own financial obligations or make regular financial payments over the next two months. The expediency of determining in Article 115 of the Bankruptcy Procedure Code an exclusive list of grounds for initiating insolvency proceedings against an individual is argued. Consolidation in Art. 115 of the Code of the inexhaustible list complicates law enforcement as provides a possibility of application of norms of other regulatory legal acts; provides wide discretion to the court, which creates conditions for the abuse of procedural rights for both participants in the bankruptcy proceedings and judges. The peculiarities of initiating proceedings to restore the solvency of an individual are specified: only the debtor himself may apply to the court to declare an individual insolvent. In order to reduce the financial burden on an insolvent individual in the implementation of bankruptcy proceedings, it is proposed to give the creditor the right to initiate legal proceedings for the insolvency of such a person.

The diploma thesis deals with several areas of issues related to valuing companies in bankruptcy proceedings. These spheres are interconnected. First and foremost it deals with the reasons for company valuation and perspectives of different subjects on this valuation. The second sphere of the thesis is the analysis of valuation approaches that are based on legal regulations of the Czech Republic. The last part of the paper is application of the valuation on a specific business company with subsequent confrontation with the actual realization of the company. Valuation is of crucial importance to creditors because it is determining in relation to their subsequent meeting the submitted claims.

La thèse intitulée « Les actions qui découlent directement de la procédure d'insolvabilité et qui y sont étroitement liées dans le cadre du règlement UE 2015/848 sur les procédures d'insolvabilité » se concentre sur les critères de détermination des juridictions compétentes en matière de litiges découlant de la procédure d'insolvabilité dans le contexte de procédures transfrontalières. Selon son Article 1(1)(b), les procédures d'insolvabilité sont exclues du champ d'application du règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 (« Règlement Bruxelles ») et devraient être couvertes par le règlement (UE) n° 848/2015 ('Règlement Insolvabilité'). Pour cette raison, en principe, l'interprétation de deux règlements devrait, autant que possible, combler les lacunes réglementaires entre les deux instruments. Le texte du nouvel article 6 Règlement Insolvabilité prévoit désormais que les juridictions compétentes en vertu de l'article 3 du Règlement Insolvabilité soient compétentes dans le cadre de toutes les actions qui découlent directement de la procédure d'insolvabilité et y sont étroitement liées. Toutefois, ce principe (appelé la vis attractiva concursus « réduite » ), malgré quelques clarifications ont été fournies par la Cour de Justice, ne résoudra pas la question et l'interprétation du champ d'application du Règlement Insolvabilité par rapport au Règlement Bruxelles est encore douteuse, car il y a encore beaucoup de zones grises dans l'interprétation de cette règle. Le but de la thèse est d'analyser ce qui est attendu en matière de litiges découlant de la procédure d'insolvabilité et d'analyser les cas où il est controversé qu'elles entrent dans le champ d'application du règlement (UE) n° 848/2015 plutôt que dans celui du règlement n° 1215/2012
The thesis, entitled "Actions deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and closely linked with them under regulation EU 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings", focuses on the criteria for determining the courts having jurisdiction for disputes arising in the context of cross-border Insolvency proceedings. According to its Article l(l)(b), insolvency proceedings are excluded from the scope of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 ('Brussels Regulation') and should be covered by Regulation (EU) No 848/2015 ('EIR). For this reason, in principle, the interpretation of the two regulations should, as far as possible, fill in the regulatory gaps between the two instruments. The text of the new Article 6 EIR now provides that any action with cross-border elements that prove to be 'directly deriving from Insolvency proceedings and closely linked with them' must be attracted to the jurisdiction of the Member State opening the insolvency procedure under Article 3 EIR. Nevertheless, this principle (referred to as the 'reduced' vis attractiva concursus), despite some clarifications provided by the European Court of Justice, does not resolve the issue, and the interpretation of the scope of application of the Insolvency Regulation and the Brussels Regulation's remains questionable, as there are still many grey zones in the interpretation of this rule. The aim of the thesis is to analyse what kind of actions should be regarded as 'directly deriving from' and 'closely linked with' insolvency proceedings, and to analyse those cases where it is controversial whether the action should fall within the scope of the EIR rather than the Brussels Regulation

La questione delle azioni individuali che derivano direttamente dal fallimento e ad esso ineriscono (nel seguito, c.d. “azioni ancillari”) nel contesto europeo è stata storicamente affrontata con riferimento all’ambito di applicazione della Convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968 sulla competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale (la “Convenzione di Bruxelles”). In mancanza (all’epoca) di una disciplina comunitaria sull’insolvenza transfrontaliera, con la nota sentenza Gourdain, la CGE ha interpretato la nozione di azione ancillare sotto il prisma dell’esclusione relativa a “i fallimenti, i concordati e le procedure affini”, prevista dall’articolo 1(2)(2) della Convenzione di Bruxelles. È stato in quell’occasione che la Corte ha ritenuto che le azioni in qualche modo riferibili al fallimento sono escluse dal campo di applicazione della Convenzione di Bruxelles (oggi Regolamento Bruxelles Ibis) a condizione che esse derivino direttamente dal fallimento e si inseriscano stretta¬mente nell'ambito del procedimento concorsuale (così coniando quella che, negli anni, è stata definita la “Formula Gourdain”). Le incertezze interpretative derivanti da una formulazione così ambigua, allora riferita al solo ambito di applicazione della Convenzione di Bruxelles, non venivano rimosse (e, anzi, forse erano acuite) dall’introduzione di una specifica disciplina relativa alle procedure di insolvenza. Ed infatti, il successivo Regolamento (CE) 1346/2000 (il “Regolamento Insolvenza”), da un lato conteneva una grave lacuna normativa, poiché nulla diceva in tema di giurisdizione sulle azioni ancillari e, dall’altro lato, anche laddove le menzionava (per fini diversi dalla giurisdizione), si limitava a riprodurre la Formula Gourdain. Il nebuloso quadro normativo appena descritto è stato in parte chiarito dal Regolamento (UE) 2015/848 (il “Regolamento Recast”), che ha provveduto a rimediare alla predetta omissione, prevedendo espressamente la vis attractiva (dimezzata) europea, ai sensi della quale la competenza giurisdizionale sulle azioni ancillari spetta ai giudici dello Stato membro in cui è aperta la procedura. Se è stato così chiarito l’aspetto “dinamico”, relativo alla giurisdizione, resta, invece, parzialmente immutato il problema di una definizione autonoma di azione ancillare, i cui confini, anche nel Regolamento Recast, continuano ad essere delineati dalla Formula Gourdain. Indicazioni solo parziali possono trarsi dal Considerando 35 Regolamento Recast e, soprattutto, dalle pronunce della CGE, che pur consentendo, in parte, di avanzare una più definita sistematizzazione della nozione di azioni ancillari, rivelano sostanzialmente un orientamento ondivago, che non consente di rintracciare (ancora) un criterio generale, certo e condiviso sul punto. Si può allora ipotizzare che, ai fini della normativa europea, ancillari siano quelle azioni che sottendono una pretesa che sorge ex novo dal fallimento, il cui DNA, potremmo dire, è ontologicamente legato all’insolvenza. Si tratta di un numero assai ridotto di azioni quali (prevedibilmente) la revocatoria; le azioni di responsabilità nei confronti di organi della procedura, e le azioni che derivano dallo scioglimento dei contratti esercitato dal curatore per un’espressa previsione della legge concorsuale. Per contro, non sarebbero ancillari tutte le altre azioni rispetto a cui il fallimento si pone quale evento neutro (es. quelle che presentano con il fallimento un legame solo occasionale e quelle che preesistevano nel patrimonio del fallito). Permangono, tuttavia, notevoli dubbi rispetto a quelle azioni, collocabili in un’incerta twilght-zone, al confine tra il diritto civile, commerciale e il diritto fallimentare che, preesistenti al fallimento, sono in qualche misura influenzate dall’apertura di una procedura concorsuale. Nel solco di queste preliminari osservazioni, la tesi si ripropone di analizzare specificatamente il tema delle azioni ancillari nella disciplina europea, non solo indagandone gli aspetti processuali (in particolare, della giurisdizione), ma valutando anche una possibile individuazione di una nozione autonoma di azione ancillare e l’elaborazione di un catalogo di azioni che, pur nelle differenze proprie di ogni ordinamento nazionale, rivelino uno jus commune europaeum che consenta di inquadrarle nell’ambito di applicazione del Regolamento Recast.
Historically, the topic of individual actions directly deriving from and closely linked with insolvency proceedings (hereinafter referred to as “Annex Actions”) has been addressed in the European scenario with reference to the scope ratione materiae of the Brussels Convention dated 1968 on the jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (the “Brussels Convention”). In the absence (at that time) of Community rules on cross-border insolvencies, in the Gourdain judgment the ECJ interpreted the notion of Annex Actions under the prism of the exception relating to “bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings”, set forth by Article 1(2)(2) Brussels Convention. It was on that occasion that the Court held that actions which are related to insolvency proceedings are excluded from the scope of the Brussels Convention (now the Brussels 1a Regulation), with the proviso that they derive directly from insolvency proceedings and are closely linked with them (thus coining what has been called, over the years, the “Gourdain Formula”). The interpretative uncertainties arising from such an ambiguous wording - at the time referring only to the scope of application of the Brussels Convention - were not removed (and possibly were even exacerbated) by the introduction of the European regime on insolvency proceedings. Indeed, the Regulation (EC) 1346/2000 (the “Insolvency Regulation”), on the one hand, revealed a serious regulatory gap, since it did not provide for a rule on the jurisdiction of Annex Actions and, on the other hand, even where it mentioned them (for purposes other than jurisdiction), it laconically restated the Gourdain Formula, with no further clarifications. The nebulous legislative framework described above has been partly clarified by Regulation (EU) 2015/848 (the “Recast Regulation”), which has remedied the aforementioned omission, expressly providing for the (halved) European vis attractiva concursus. According to that principle, the courts of the Member State in the territory of which insolvency proceedings are opened, are vested with the jurisdiction to hear and determine Annex Actions. The impact of the reform over the “dynamic” profile of the vis attractiva concursus must be positively assessed since it has dispelled many of the doubts concerning the allocation of jurisdiction on Annex Actions. Yet, the problem of the autonomous definition of Annex Actions remains partially unsolved, because also under the Recast Regulation, the contours of that concept continue to be defined by the vague Gourdain Formula. Only partial indications can be drawn from Recital 35 Recast Regulation and, above all, from the extensive case-law of the ECJ. The latter, however, allows only to some extent to draw a systematic notion of Annex Actions, as it substantially reveals a wavering orientation, which does not permit to trace (yet) a general criterion, certain and shared on this point. It is suggested that, for the purposes of the European legislation, Annex Actions are those actions underpinning a right or obligation which stems from the opening of insolvency proceedings, whose DNA, we might say, is ontologically linked to insolvency proceedings. They would count a very small number of actions such as (predictably) avoidance actions, liability actions against the trustee and other bodies of the procedure, and actions arising from the termination of contracts exercised by the trustee by virtue of the express powers conferred upon him by insolvency law. On the contrary, all other actions in respect of which the procedure is a neutral (legal) event should not be characterised as Annex Actions (e.g. actions that have only an occasional link with insolvency proceedings and those that existed in the legal sphere of the insolvent debtor prior to the opening of the procedure). However, considerable doubts remain with respect to the characterisation of some actions, which can be placed in an uncertain twilight-zone at the crossline between civil, commercial law and bankruptcy law. Although the legal foundation of those action exists even before insolvency proceedings, they prove to be affected by the opening of the procedure to such an extent that they may be considered as different actions. In the wake of these preliminary observations, the thesis aims to specifically analyse the topic of Annex Actions under the European regime of cross-border insolvencies. Not only it investigates the procedural aspects of the issue (in particular, the jurisdiction), but it also assesses whether it is possible to draw an autonomous notion of Annex Action and elaborate a catalogue of actions, which, despite the differences inherent in each national system, reveal a jus commune europaeum that allows to trace them back under the umbrella of the Recast Regulation.
La thèse intitulé « les actions qui découlent directement de la procédure d’insolvabilité et qui y sont étroitement liées dans le cadre du Règlement UE 2015/848 sur les procédures d'insolvabilité » se concentre sur les critères de détermination des juridictions compétentes en matière de litiges découlant de la procédure d’insolvabilité dans le contexte de procédures transfrontalières. Selon son Article 1(1)(b), les procédures d’insolvabilité sont exclues du Règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale (« Règlement Bruxelles ») et devraient relever du champ d’application du Règlement (UE) n° 848/2015 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité (« Règlement Refondu »). Pour cette raison, en principe, l’interprétation de deux susmentionnés Règlements devrait, autant que possible, combler les lacunes entre les deux instruments. Le texte du nouvel article 6 du Règlement Refondu prévoit désormais que les juridictions compétentes en vertu de son article 3 soient compétentes également pour toutes les actions qui découlent directement de la procédure d’insolvabilité et y sont étroitement liées. Toutefois, ce principe (appelé la vis attractiva concursus européenne), malgré quelques clarifications ont été fournies par la Cour de Justice, ne résoudre pas la question et l’interprétation du champ d’application du Règlement Refondu par rapport au Règlement Bruxelles est encore douteuse, car il y a encore beaucoup de zones grises dans l’interprétation de cette règle. L'objectif de la thèse est d'analyser quel type d'actions doit être considéré comme « découlant directement » et « étroitement lié » aux procédures d'insolvabilité, et d'analyser les cas où il est controversé de savoir si l'action doit entrer dans le champ d'application du Règlement Refondu plutôt que dans celui du Règlement Bruxelles.

Texte remanié de: Proefschrift--Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen, 2004.
EC = European communauty, UNCITRAL = United Nations. Commission on international trade law. Résumé en néerlandais. Bibliogr. p. 449-468.

Insolvency law is a progressive and dynamic legal discipline closely interrelated with economics and business. A quality legal framework of insolvency is indispensable for modern market economies: it helps to identify companies or individuals in financial distress and to restructure their debts, or liquidate their assets in an efficient and transparent way. The main purpose of the insolvency law is to provide creditors and debtors with a ground for negotiations and to help them reach qualified decisions based on the available information. In the Czech Republic, the insolvency law had long been criticized for its insufficient protection of creditors and for the loopholes that made extensive property frauds possible without having the wrongdoers punished. The current Czech Insolvency Act which took effect in 2008 was broadly inspired by the U.S. Bankruptcy Code Chapter 11 and eliminated most of the weaknesses of the earlier law. This thesis shows that valuable inspiration can be found not only in texts of statutes but also in the real life. On the example of reorganizations of Kordárna and GM described here, main principles of insolvency law are being discussed.

Le nantissement de créance a longtemps été délaissé par les acteurs économiques en raison du régime juridique inadapté qui lui était applicable. Les dispositions concernant le nantissement de créance mises en place par l’ordonnance du 23 mars 2006 relative aux sûretés ont permis de rendre cette garantie attractive pour les créanciers grâce à l’élaboration d’un régime adapté, cohérent et souple.La pratique a toutefois révélé certaines incertitudes dues aux imprécisions des dispositions actuellement en vigueur, source d’un important contentieux et d’insécurité juridique pour les parties.Cette insécurité est accrue au moment où les créanciers ont besoin de s’assurer de l’efficacité de leur sûreté, c’est-à-dire en cas d’ouverture d’une procédure collective à l’encontre du constituant.En effet, l'évolution du droit des entreprises en difficulté a conduit à la mise en place d’une protection accrue du débiteur et une recherche de maintien de l'activité de l'entreprise. Afin de parvenir à cet objectif, les droits des créanciers sont considérablement restreints puisqu'ils sont soumis à une discipline collective et ne peuvent notamment plus poursuivre le paiement de leur créance, ni procéder à la réalisation de leur sûreté.Ainsi, l’étude du fonctionnement du nantissement de créance est nécessaire afin de déterminer si cette sûreté peut être efficace pour le créancier nanti si une procédure collective est ouverte à l’encontre du constituant.Il convient de démontrer que l’efficacité du nantissement de créance dépend des droits qu'il confère au créancier, tels que la notification de la sûreté et le droit exclusif au paiement de la créance nantie. Néanmoins, cette garantie ne trouvera réellement sa place parmi les sûretés les plus protectrices que si ces prérogatives lui sont reconnues également en cas de procédure collective.L'examen du fonctionnement du nantissement de créance et des droits qu'il confère permet de mettre en exergue la possibilité pour le créancier nanti d’exercer et de conserver son droit exclusif au paiement même après le jugement d'ouverture, ce qui confirme l'efficacité de cette sûreté
Pledges over receivables have long been neglected by actors of the economy because of its inadequate legal system. But since the order from March 23rd, 2006 and the new provisions regarding security it implemented, the consistent, appropriate and flexible system has become more attractive for creditors.In practice however, the current provisions are too imprecise to reassure the involved parties who remain uncertain and insecure in their litigations.This uncertainty increases when creditors need to ensure that their security is efficient, i.e. when launching collective insolvency proceedings against the grantor.Indeed, the debtor has become more protected with each alteration of bankruptcy proceedings law which seeks to keep companies active. To that end, creditors’ rights have been greatly restricted: they are subjected to collective discipline and cannot continue paying their receivables.In this context, it appears necessary to study pledges over receivables to ascertain if said security can work for the secured creditor in case of collective insolvency proceedings against the grantor.We shall demonstrate that the efficiency of pledges over receivables depends directly on the rights it gives to the creditor, such as notifying the security and granting exclusive right of payment of the secured receivable. However, this guarantee can only become one of the most protecting securities if these rights are also granted in case of collective proceedings.By examining how pledges over receivables and the right they grant work, we can highlight the possibility for the secured creditor to exercise and keep their exclusive right of payment, even after the opening judgment; thus confirming the efficiency of the pledge over receivables

This thesis deals with claims in insolvency proceedings primarily focusing on the obligations of the insolvency practitioner which arise when dealing with these problems. The aim of this study is to map out all the mentioned claims throughout the whole insolvency proceedings and describe the main role of the insolvency practitioner during the process. The analysis was based on regulations of the Act no. 182/2006 Coll., on Bankruptcy and Its Resolution (Insolvency Act), accompanied by fundamental judicatureand thorough literature review. In addition, the results of this work were also interpretations of the lifecycle of claims from their existence in insolvency proceedings to their extinction.

The topic of this thesis is to compare the effects of bankruptcy and reorganization. In 2008, the new Insolvency Act come in force, which should facilitate the reorganization of companies i.e., maintaining their operation with the same or similar production program, or range of offered services. The intention of this work is to evaluate the effect of the practice of law in a few specific cases. The aim of analysis of these examples was to determine whether borrowers use this new option of the solution of bankruptcy or why reorganizations do not take place more.

Where main insolvency proceedings have been opened by a court of a Member State and recognised in another Member State, a court of that other Member State which has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 3(2) may open secondary insolvency proceedings in accordance with the provisions set out in this Chapter. Where the main insolvency proceedings required that the debtor be insolvent, the debtor’s insolvency shall not be re-examined in the Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings may be opened. The effects of secondary insolvency proceedings shall be restricted to the assets of the debtor situated within the territory of the Member State in which those proceedings have been opened.

This chapter deals with the procedures available when a company is insolvent or facing financial difficulties. It also considers the ways in which insolvent partnerships can be subject to the same procedures as companies. The law relating to these matters is principally contained in the Insolvency Act 1986 together with the Insolvency Rules 1986, as amended by the Insolvency Act 2000 and the Enterprise Act 2002. The insolvency legislation provides four procedures for companies in financial difficulties: administration, voluntary arrangement, receivership, and liquidation.

This chapter deals with the procedures available when a company is insolvent or facing financial difficulties. It also considers the ways in which insolvent partnerships can be subject to the same procedures as companies. The law relating to these matters is principally contained in the Insolvency Act 1986 together with the Insolvency Rules 1986, as amended by the Insolvency Act 2000 and the Enterprise Act 2002. The insolvency legislation provides four procedures for companies in financial difficulties: administration, voluntary arrangement, receivership, and liquidation.

This chapter deals with the procedures available when a company is insolvent or facing financial difficulties. It also considers the ways in which insolvent partnerships can be subject to the same procedures as companies. The law relating to these matters is principally contained in the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986) together with the Insolvency Rules 1986, as amended by the Insolvency Act 2000 and the Enterprise Act 2002. The insolvency legislation provides four procedures for companies in financial difficulties: administration, voluntary arrangement, receivership, and liquidation.

This part refers to the conversion of secondary insolvency proceedings in Article 51 of the EU Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR). It clarifies the option of the court of the Member State in which secondary insolvency proceedings have been opened to order the conversion of the secondary insolvency proceedings into another type of insolvency proceedings. It also describes Article 51 as a uniform substantive law provision that grants standing to the insolvency practitioner in main proceedings to request the conversion of secondary proceedings from one type of proceeding into another more suitable type. The part draws lessons that must be learned from the Bank Handlowy case. It demonstrates the conversion of secondary insolvency proceedings into another type of insolvency proceedings that is more appropriate in order to ensure coherence between main and secondary proceedings.

Insolvency proceedings, whether of a terminal or a reorganizational nature, are the proceedings which can be invoked by or in respect of a company so as to subject its property and affairs to the rules of insolvency law applicable to the administration of an insolvent estate.

When an enterprise becomes insolvent, it affects the partners (suppliers) of the company, the State and has a significant impact on the employees. The issue of the protection of workers' rights is one of the most important aspects in situations where the employer is declared insolvent. The country can develop its own employee protection system in case of company’s insolvency. In this article, based on the statistical data for the period 2003 – 2019, the author analyses the situation in Latvia. The aim of the study is to analyse the existing employee protection mechanism in Latvia, which the State implements with the help of state entrepreneurial risk fee. Two ways of protecting the rights of employees or satisfying claims are distinguished: a privilege system and a guarantee system. Latvia chooses the guarantee system. In this article, based on the statistical data obtained, it is proved that the model chosen by Latvia is financially successful although creates a negligible burden for entrepreneurs, and its benefits are significant because, in line with the situation of Latvia, sufficient financial resources are accumulated each year and employees' claims are covered to a certain amount according to regulations in enactments, as well as the Income Tax and Mandatory State Social Insurance Contributions are paid from these requirements covered by the guarantee fund. The author considers that the State may act as an intermediary or insurer in the insolvency situations of an undertaking in order to protect employees and, in particular, the State budget from covering unforeseeable costs.

The contribution discusses the fulfillment of the repayment schedule of the debtor in insolvency proceedings from funds obtained on the basis of a negotiated pension contract. The analysis is devoted to the institution of the pension contract, the fulfillment of the repayment schedule in insolvency proceedings with an emphasis on the provided pension contract, the dishonest intention of the debtor when negotiating such contracts and the person of the pension payer. The view of the jurisprudence of higher courts on individual aspects of such contracts is taken into account.

The coronavirus pandemic is pushing large number of firms towards insolvency by dramatically changing consumption patterns and business operations. The first wave of liquidity-focused policy responses (Act on Intervention Measures in Enforcement and Insolvency Proceedings for Duration of Special Circumstances) prevented or delayed more severe consequences for the corporate sector. While some liquidity support is still needed, the crucial issue that must be tackled now is that of corporate solvency. This paper addresses the role of the Financial Agency (hereinafter: FINA), which, as a legal entity with public authority, has (in)appropriate legal authority in bankruptcy proceedings over the rights of entities. As in the previous paper, a multidisciplinary scientific approach is advocated, which should contribute to the consideration of various aspects of the relationship between FINA, the state, the judiciary and the current tendency of Dejudicijalization.