Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

A recent decision of the New York Court of Appeals, Sutton v. Pilevsky held that federal bankruptcy law does not preempt state law tortious interference claims against non-debtors who participated in a scheme that caused a debtor—in this case a bankruptcy remote special purpose entity—to breach contractual obligations intended to ensure that the entity remains a Special Purpose Entity (SPE) and to facilitate the lenders’ enforcement of remedies upon a future bankruptcy filing, if any.

On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.

Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).

On June 26, 2019, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union published a new EU Restructuring Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks, discharge of debt and disqualifications, and measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt (“Directive”).

This is an extraordinary achievement given the existing differences in restructuring regimes across EU Member States.

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)).