Pursuant to the issuing by the Romanian government of Government emergency ordinance no. 91/2013 on the Insolvency Code, Ordinance that has been declared unconstitutional by the Romanian Constitutional Court in October 2013, Romanian Parliament adopted a new Insolvency Law (“New Law”), maintaining some of the valuable provisions of the unconstitutional Ordinance. 

The Romanian government has adopted, by means of Government emergency ordinance no. 91, the Insolvency Code. The Code gathers and amends all pre-insolvency and insolvency provisions in Romanian legislation relating to companies, groups of companies, credit institutions, insurance and reinsurance companies, as well as cross-border insolvency proceedings. It will enter into force on October 25, 2013 and will also apply to already ongoing insolvency proceedings.

The New Civil Procedure Code (NCPC) came into force on 15 February 2013 and is applicable to all enforcement proceedings that commenced after this date.

The New Civil Procedure Code (NCPC) came into force on 15 February 2013 and is applicable to all enforcement proceedings that commenced after this date.

Creditors may begin forced execution if they have an enforceable title. During such proceedings several incidents may occur, which may result in either the impossibility or the delay to the full protection of the creditor’s rights.

Statute of limitations

The New Civil Procedure Code (NCPC) was postponed several times before eventually coming into force on 15 February 2013. The legislators anticipate that the new law will speed up proceedings and offer a greater level of protection to civil rights.

In the case of Coughlin v. South Canaan Cellular Investments, LLC, C.A. No. 7202-VCL (Del. Ch. July 6, 2012), Respondents made a request for fee shifting under the bad-faith exception to the American Rule.  In reviewing this fee shifting request, the Court found that Respondents’ request itself was unfounded, and coupled with Respondents’ own conduct in the case, instead awarded Petitioner his fees in costs in the amount of $17,906.

In the case of Wagamon v. Dolan, C.A. No. 5594-VCG (Del. Ch. Apr. 20, 2012), the Court of Chancery reviewed Defendant William Krieg’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 56.  This dispute involves the winding up of a joint venture, Internet Working Technologies, Inc. (“INT”) owned by Allan Wagamon and David B.