The Slovak Ministry of Justice was very busy last year, and the recent amendment to the Commercial Code introduces a number of provisions that are aimed at fixing local malpractice related to mergers and liquidation of companies, use of “straw men” as executives and the impact of bad decisions of shareholders on the local affiliates.
In a previous post, we covered the topic of increased liability of executives for not filing the petition for bankruptcy. However, the Ministry of Justice did not stop just there.
Corporate Veil Pierced
As of 1 January 2018, those who are obliged to file a petition for declaration of bankruptcy of a company will face stricter liability in Slovakia. This could result in them being required to pay a fine/damages and can even result in their disqualification from sitting on boards of Slovak companies.
Key points
Failure to comply with sections 333 and 363 of the Insolvency Act constitutes contempt of court for which a committal order may be obtained.
A trustee in bankruptcy should not usually require permission to apply for a committal order.
Correct procedure for application confirmed by the court.
Key points
Information obtained by compulsion can be shared between officeholders of connected estates (parent/subsidiary)
There must, however, be a possibility that there will be a surplus in the subsidiary estate
The prospect must be real as opposed to fanciful
The facts
Much has already been written about the proposal for the “Second Chance” directive (“Proposal“) published in November 2016 which is still being debated by the EU bodies – and rightly so. Harmonisation of insolvency law across the EU is needed as one in four insolvency proceedings is a cross-border insolvency and creditors need to know what to expect in other EU countries and that the courts and practitioners cooperate in an efficient way.
Key points
Court reiterated circumstances in which it will sanction a proposed course of action by administrators
Requirement that the course of action be “particularly momentous”
Court sanctioned proposed settlement in the circumstances
The Facts
Key Points
Key Points
- Floating charge is valid even where there are no unencumbered assets at the time it is taken
- Crystallisation of prior ranking floating charge does not impact enforceability of second ranking floating charge
The Facts
Key points
Key Points
- Directors cannot file a notice of intention to appoint (NoI) without a ‘settled intention’ to appoint an administrator
- NoIs cannot be used where there is no qualifying floating charge holder (QFCH)
- The judgment has implications for validity of appointments where requirements not met
The Facts