After a delay of more than a year, an Act on Preventive Restructuring (the "Act") implementing the EU directive on preventive restructuring frameworks finally became effective in the Czech Republic on 23 September 2023. The long-awaited Act introduced a brand-new legal tool enabling viable enterprises in temporary financial distress to achieve restructuring outside insolvency proceedings. It is a voluntary and flexible process requiring cooperation with creditors, but not necessarily with all of them.

Who can use it?

After a delay of more than a year, an act on preventive restructuring (the "Act") implementing the EU directive on preventive restructuring frameworks finally became effective in the Czech Republic on 23 September 2023. The long-awaited Act introduces a brand-new legal tool preventing the insolvency of viable enterprises in temporary financial distress.

What is preventive restructuring and why use it?

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

The Czech Ministry of Justice recently published a bill on preventive restructurings (the "Bill") implementing the directive on preventive restructuring frameworks which will introduce a brand-new legal tool preventing the insolvency of viable enterprises in temporary financial difficulties.

The Bill is now heading to the legislative process and should become effective from July 2022. Although it may still undergo some changes, it is already obvious that it will revolutionise Czech insolvency law.

Editorial | Restructuring Directive  

The amendment to the Business Corporations Act effective from 1 January of this year (the "Amendment") brings, among other things, a significant change in the liability of members of a statutory body, which will affect the current topic of insolvency.

Members of a statutory body may now be liable in the event of insolvency for a much wider range of misconduct than was the case until the end of 2020. And not only them. The Amendment explicitly widens the range of persons to whom the new liability rules will apply.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background