A new fee structure in respect of insolvency fees payable to the Insolvency Service came into force on 21 July 2016, pursuant to The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2016 (SI 2016/692) (the “Order”), which revokes The Insolvency Proceedings (Fees) Order 2004 (SI 2004/593) and all ten subsequent amendment orders.
Background
Creditors of an insolvent entity file their claims against the entity with the insolvency administrator (Germany) or insolvency court (Austria). If a claim is accepted, it is registered in the insolvency table as an accepted claim and the creditor is listed as an insolvency creditor in the insolvency proceedings.
Last week the UK Government issued a consultation document on changing UK insolvency legislation to enable distressed companies to obtain a moratorium for up to three months, with the possibility of an extension, under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner. The moratorium would prevent all creditors, including secured creditors, from taking any enforcement action against such companies without first applying to court for permission to do so. This follows a briefing paper published by R3 last month suggesting a similar moratorium process.
Directors of a company are subject to certain duties under the Companies Act 2006. These duties are of obvious importance throughout their service as a director but some of them become particularly important during the period leading up to the insolvency of the company.
By order of the Commercial Court of Vienna from 30.11.2015, bankruptcy proceedings were opened against the assets of the food chain Zielpunkt GmbH. With liabilities amounting to approximately 237 million euros, the Zielpunkt insolvency is the biggest of 2015. Zielpunkt has 229 branches in total in Austria and employs 2708 employees. The insolvency administrator is trying to sell as many branches as possible. The acquisition of Zielpunkt branches by competitors, as by the two biggest grocers REWE and Spar, however, raises competition law concerns due to the large market share.
On 14 September 2015, judgment was handed down in the case of Re SSRL Realisations Limited (In Administration), in which a landlord was granted permission to forfeit a lease by peaceable re-entry. The case will be of interest to insolvency practitioners and landlords alike – but for very different reasons.
As can be read in the media, reorganization proceedings were opened on the assets of the Kärntner Landes- und Hypothekenbank-Holding.
The reason for the application for initiation of reorganization proceedings is the liability by virtue of law of the applicant for all current and future liabilities of the bad bank HETA Asset Resolution AG, universal successor of Hypo Alpe-Adria-Bank International AG.
At a time when insolvency practitioner’s (“IPs”) fees are being scrutinised more closely than ever, the case of Bell v Birchall and others [2015] is a timely reminder to IPs to consider the necessity of the work they propose to undertake, particularly in respect of assets that do not form part of the insolvent estate. In this case, the court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make a “Berkeley Applegate” order.
Since 01 January 1995 natural persons in Austria have the possibility of debt relief within the framework of debt settlement proceedings. This is a special form of insolvency proceedings for natural persons, irrespective of whether they are consumers or individual entrepreneurs. The aim of the debt settlement proceedings is the ability to offer a person who is insolvent the chance to escape from an otherwise often endless cycle of constantly rising debt through accrued interest and new execution costs, and to become debt free after seven years.
Creditors frustrated by cost and time delays in cross border disputes, as well as from unscrupulous delaying tactics by debtors, will have some comfort in the form of the revised EU Judgments Regulation. The revised Regulation came into force on 10 January 2015 and aims to resolve cross-border legal disputes more easily, bringing huge cost savings to creditors.