The new Slovakian preventive restructuring framework aims to provide companies with a viable toolkit to deal with financial distress at an early stage and to counter the fact that the majority of Slovak companies enter an insolvency process having been insolvent for more than a year.

Main characteristics

The Slovak parliament recently passed a new law – The Temporary Protection of Distressed Undertakings Before Creditors – which came into effect on 1 January 2021. It replaces the current temporary protection (moratorium) adopted at the outset of the COVID-19 crisis.

The new regulation will only be granted where a majority of the unrelated creditors involved agree with the stay. This marks a departure from the COVID-19 moratorium, which could be easily accessed by all debtors impacted by the coronavirus pandemic.

On 22 April 2020, the Slovak parliament passed a new law to help reduce the impact of COVID-19.

It is now possible for businesses to request temporary protection that will have the following effects:

Since the outbreak of COVID-19 in Europe, the Slovak Parliament has adopted a series of new laws aiming predominantly to support employment, to provide financial aid and tax relief (particularly to SMEs) and to preserve and regulate legal enforcement.

The insolvency law related measures include mainly:

Debtor's filing

The statutory time limit for debtors to file for bankruptcy due to over-indebtedness (balance sheet test) that occurred between 12 March and 30 April 2020 has been prolonged from 30 to 60 days (and is expected to be prolonged further).

Background

New rules strengthen the position of individual creditors and weaken the concept of insolvency proceedings as a means of final collective satisfaction of creditors. Taylor Wessing in Bratislava, as an advisor to the Ministry of Justice, has been actively involved in the creation of this new regime.

New provisions

Summary

The Existing System

Despite its introduction to the Slovak legal system in 2006, current laws on debt relief within the framework of bankruptcy of natural persons have not been a viable solution.

Basing the legal institute of debt relief on a two-step procedure:

• starting with bankruptcy (i.e. liquidation of (all) the debtor’s assets)
• then followed by a three-year trial period at the end of which the court releases a resolution on the possibility of personal bankruptcy

has in fact hindered debtors from filing.

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

The result is clear and not a surprising one. The judgments are less clear however. The Court highlighted the difficulties in developing illegality principles of general application for future cases, but then decided now was not the time to try.

Illegality, attribution of knowledge, and Stone & Rolls: Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited

On 22 April 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Limited¹, unanimously holding that where a company has been the victim of wrong-doing by its directors, that wrong-doing should not be attributed to the company so as to afford the directors an illegality defence.

Blue Monkey Gaming v Hudson & Others

Insolvency professionals will welcome the High Court's decision in Blue Monkey Gaming Limited v Hudson & Others [2014] which is clear authority that the onus is upon retention of title claimants, not administrators, to locate and identify retention of title goods. The court made clear that to require the administrator to identify retention of title goods would be "totally unrealistic and practically unworkable."