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:

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.

Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.