One very serious problem associated with insolvency proceedings in the Czech Republic is submitting ‘vexatious’ insolvency petitions. In general, insolvency petitions are considered to be vexatious if they, in fact, pursue a goal other than that of resolving the debtor’s insolvency. Such petitions are often filed against financially sound entities in order to harm them in the eyes of their business partners and customers.
On 1 July 2017, a major amendment to the Czech Insolvency Act came into effect. The amendment introduces a change to the definition of insolvency – the term liquidity gap. Debtors, who are entrepreneurs and keep accounting books, will now be allowed to prove that they are able to pay their due monetary liabilities by proving the possession of a sufficient amount of available funds or by proving that they are able to obtain such funds in the near future. Thus, in simple terms, a liquidity gap means in this connection a lack of available funds for the payment of due liabilities.
The Insolvency Act has significantly strengthened the position of creditors in comparison with the former Bankruptcy and Composition Act. Nevertheless, the position of a creditor is fundamentally affected by its voting rights, by which it may influence countless decisions.
However, many disputed issues arise in practice, for example, whether a creditor with a contested claim or a creditor affiliated with a debtor may vote. In this context, the new rules regarding voting rights cannot be ignored.
New regulation of voting rights for disputed claims
Intensive debate is currently under way in EU bodies on the proposal for a directive that could have a substantial impact on insolvency proceedings and the restructuring process in individual EU Member States. The proposal No. 2016/0359/COD[1] (“Proposal”) submitted by the European Commission envisages, among other things, the establishment of a legal framework governing informal restructuring of corporations’ financial engagement (“Informal Restructuring”).
The definition of insolvency is a key element of the insolvency law. It opens the gate for tools that enable creditors to safeguard their rights vis-à-vis their debtors. This week, the Czech Supreme Court published a ground-breaking decision which addresses a crucial aspect of balance-sheet insolvency. Many other issues, however, still remain unresolved.
Definition of insolvency
As in other jurisdictions, the Czech Insolvency Act anticipates two forms of insolvency -- cash-flow insolvency (illiquidity test) and balance-sheet insolvency (over-indebtedness).
Debt relief is by far the most frequent way of resolving insolvency under Czech law. According to statistics, as many as 26,482 insolvency petitions proposing debt relief (approximately 90% of all insolvency petitions) were filed in 2016. However, with the current headcount of judicial personnel, courts are substantially loaded with the high number of debt-relief cases. In this respect, the amendment to the Insolvency Act – that came into effect on 1 July 2017 – aims, among other things, to decrease the work load of the courts.
On 14 February 2017 the President of the Czech Republic signed an extensive amendment to the Insolvency Act. The amendment brings significant changes to a number of aspects pertaining to insolvency proceedings, including security of contingent claims (including bank guarantees), the assessment of a company's insolvency and insolvency petitions, and discharge of debts. The amendment, inter alia, seeks to provide better protection against illegitimate insolvency petitions, and to clarify when a firm is actually insolvent.