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:

One difficulty encountered by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy is the use of one or more aliases by a bankrupt. Whether it is an innocent use of a nickname or an attempt to conceal one's identity, the use of an alias can often create problems for creditors seeking to pursue debts and for trustees seeking to recover assets held by a bankrupt.

How does it happen?

As concerns about illegal phoenix activity continue to mount, it is worth remembering that the Corporations Act gives liquidators and provisional liquidators a powerful remedy to search and seize property or books of the company if it appears to the Court that the conduct of the liquidation is being prevented or delayed.

When a person is declared a bankrupt, certain liberties are taken away from that person. One restriction includes a prohibition against travelling overseas unless the approval has been given by the bankrupt's trustee in bankruptcy. This issue was recently considered by the Federal Court in Moltoni v Macks as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Moltoni (No 2) [2020] FCA 792, which involved the Federal Court's review of the trustee's initial refusal of an application by a bankrupt, Mr Moltoni, to travel to and reside in the United Kingdom.

What makes a contract an unprofitable contract which can be disclaimed by a trustee in bankruptcy without the leave of the Court under section 133(5A) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Bankruptcy Act)? Can a litigation funding agreement be considered an unprofitable contract when the agreement provides for a significant funder's premium or charge of 80% (85% in the case of an appeal)?

In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Australia declined to annul a bankruptcy in circumstances where the bankrupt claimed the proceedings should have been adjourned given his incarceration and solvency at the time the order was made: Mehajer v Weston in his Capacity as Trustee of the Bankrupt Estate of Salim Mehajer [2019] FCA 1713. The judgment is useful in reiterating what factors the Court will consider when deciding whether to order an annulment under section 153B(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (the Act).

Generally, once a company enters into liquidation, litigation against that company cannot be commenced or be continued without the leave of the Court (Corporations Act 2001, s 471B). However, occasionally a liquidator may cause a company to commence or defend litigation after the commencement of the winding up. What happens if the company in liquidation is unsuccessful in that litigation and is subject to an adverse cost order? How will such an adverse cost order rank amongst other competing creditors?

Getting to the top