The latest amendment to the Slovenian Insolvency Act (Zakon o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju or ZFPPIPP-H), which entered into force in late 2023, introduced the concept of likely or threatening insolvency and additional duties for the company and its management, which were first described in the article Amendment to the Slovenian Insolvency Act brings additional duties to the management and supervisory bodies, published in CEE Legal Matters (

The proposed EU Directive on the harmonisation of insolvency law aims to establish minimum conditions for exercising avoidance actions in insolvency proceedings in order to protect the bankruptcy estate against unlawful deprivation of assets prior to the opening of insolvency proceedings. In Slovenia, existing contestation rights provide a strict legal framework to prevent such transfers of assets and the proposed Directive is expected to strengthen them.

Scope of avoidance rules

On 1 November 2023, the long-awaited amendment to the Slovenian Insolvency Act (Zakon o finančnem poslovanju, postopkih zaradi insolventnosti in prisilnem prenehanju or ZFPPIPP-H) has entered into force.

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council harmonising certain aspects of the insolvency law. The intention of this Directive Proposal is to make insolvency proceedings more predictable and efficient within the EU.

Most importantly, the Directive Proposal introduces a mandatory inclusion of a new restructuring instrument to Slovenian insolvency law: what is known as a ‘pre-pack proceeding’, which is a fast-track liquidation proceeding that:

Directors resign for many reasons. For example, there may be disagreements among stakeholders about the future course of the company, they may be concerned about the risks associated with financial difficulty/insolvency, or they may just wish to retire.

This is one of a series of articles we at Morton Fraser are producing to guide our clients through the wholesale change proposed in Scots law in relation to security over goods, intellectual property and shares, on the one hand, and invoice finance or the purchase of receivables, on the other. For a general introduction to what the Bill covers, see here.

UK Government introduces a temporary increase to minimum debt level required for a winding up petition

Restrictions have been in place since the start of the pandemic to prevent creditors taking steps to wind up debtor companies. Those restrictions are due to expire on September 30, 2021. To lessen the risk of October seeing a mass rush by creditors seeking to wind up their debtors, the UK Government has introduced a further temporary measure in connection with liquidation petitions.

In this two part article we highlight for directors some of the main ways in which the general protection of limited liability does not apply or can be lost.

Part one of this article discusses those exceptions to the principle of limited liability that arise in insolvency or distress situations. Part two deals with the provisions that have more general applicability.

Breach of duties

Limited liability is one of the fundamental concepts in our understanding of company law. Even people who know very little about the working of limited companies may know that directors and shareholders are not liable for the debts of their companies. For the last 160 years, the protection of limited liability has been a key factor in economic growth and commercial activity as it has allowed entrepreneurs to speculate and take risks that they might not have been willing to do if the risk of personal liability overshadowed their decision-making.

One of the main differences in insolvency law between Scotland and England & Wales relates to the challengeable transactions regime under the Insolvency Act 1986.

In both jurisdictions, transactions that are entered into before a formal insolvency process begins can be attacked if they are detrimental to the creditors of the insolvent company. However, although both systems use similar language and address similar concerns, the law in the two jurisdictions is different, most notably with different time periods and defences to a challenge.