Czech Republic has recently implemented the Act on Preventive Restructuring (the Act), with effect from 23 September 2023, which offers companies in financial difficulty a chance to restructure their assets, liabilities, and capital structure.
Initiation
The preventive restructuring process may be initiated by a company if it:
A proposed amendment to the Insolvency Act, has been approved by the government and is currently under discussion in the Czech Parliament. It is expected to significantly alleviate the situation for debtors seeking debt relief. The previous government had intended to introduce similar changes; however, the legislative process was halted by the end of its term.
Current position
Currently, debtors can achieve debt relief only after 5 years of "good conduct", unless they:
While the Czech government has not yet enacted the June 2019 EU Directive on restructuring and insolvency, it has proposed another debt relief measure, the Milostivé léto or 'Debt Jubilee'. This will give debtors the opportunity to discharge debts owed to the Czech state.
Background
The measure will provide relief for debts where interest repayments substantially exceed the principal amount. The measure follows on from the previous 'Debt Jubilee' between 28 October 2021 and 28 January 2022 when 42,000 debt enforcement proceedings were cancelled.
Background
The bill implementing the EU Preventive Restructuring Directive – a means of financial relief for entrepreneurs (companies only) – should have originally been enacted and introduced last year. As the bill has not yet been approved by the Chamber of Deputies, the deadline has been moved to July 2022.
What's new?
The new government has amended the original proposal, drafted by its predecessor.
The Supreme Court in Sevilleja v Marex Financial Ltd [2020] UKSC 31 has brought much needed clarity to the legal basis and scope of the so-called ‘reflective loss’ principle. The effect of the decision is a ‘bright line’ rule that bars claims by shareholders for loss in value of their shares arising as a consequence of the company having suffered loss, in respect of which the company has a cause of action against the same wrong-doer.
The draft Lex Covid, which amends insolvency and enforcement laws and draft law on certain measures related to repayment of loans in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic, has been approved by the Czech Parliament and must now be counter-signed by the President.
The insolvency law-related measures include:
Debtor's delay in payments
A recent decision of the High Court of New Zealand provides helpful guidance for insolvency practitioners on how aspects of the voluntary administration regime should operate in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 30 March 2020, the board of directors of EncoreFX (NZ) Limited resolved to appoint administrators to the company. By then, New Zealand was already at Level 4 on the four-level alert system for COVID-19.
The UK Court of Appeal has held that legal privilege outlasts the dissolution of a company in Addlesee v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600.
Legal advice privilege applies to communications between a client and its lawyers. The general rule is that those communications cannot be disclosed to third parties unless and until the client waives the privilege.
The High Court in DHC Assets Ltd v Arnerich [2019] NZHC 1695 recently considered an application under s 301 of the Companies Act (the Act) seeking to recover $1,088,156 against the former director of a liquidated company (Vaco). The plaintiff had a construction contract with Vaco and said it had not been paid for all the work it performed under that contract.
Regan v Brougham [2019] NZCA 401 clarifies what is needed to establish a valid guarantee.
A Term Loan Agreement was entered into whereby Christine Regan and Mark Tuffin lent $50,000 to B & R Enterprises Ltd. Rachael Dey and Bryce Brougham were named as Guarantors. Bryce Brougham was the only guarantor to sign the agreement. The Company was put into liquidation and a demand made against the Guarantor.
The guarantor argued that the guarantee was not enforceable based on the following: