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.

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.

The Slovak personal insolvency regime will change on March 1, 2017. The new system is aimed at opening personal insolvency to a wider debtor audience, while keeping it simple and cost effective. Today, only those individuals with assets over EUR 1,659.70 could seek a declaration of bankruptcy. Otherwise, the proceedings would be stopped and the doors to a “fresh start” would be closed for “poor” debtors (also called No Income No Asset debtors (NINAs)).

Starting from March 1, 2017, the Slovak personal insolvency regime will change. The new system aims to make personal insolvency available to a wider debtor audience, while keeping it simple and cost efficient. Today, only individuals with assets over €1,659.70 can seek declaration of bankruptcy. Otherwise, the proceedings could be stopped and the doors to a “fresh start” closed for “poor” debtors (also called No Income No Asset debtors (NINA)).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

On September 9, 2016, Citibank’s London Branch filed a claim as collateral agent for the bondholders of New World Resources (NWR) with the High Court in Ostrava in the insolvency proceedings of OKD. OKD owns seven coal mines in the Czech Republic, employing over 13000 people. The low cost of coal and the refusal of the Czech Government to bail it out led to OKD filing for a Czech restructuring process in May 2016.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

A recent decision of the Slovak Courts suggest that if main proceedings have been opened in one member state and the debtor has assets in Slovakia, the insolvency practitioner in the main proceedings must act quickly and sell those assets before secondary proceedings are opened in Slovakia, otherwise he runs the risk of losing the assets to the secondary estate. Legal title to the assets must have passed to the buyer before the secondary proceedings are opened; it is not enough just for contracts to have been exchanged.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.