The long-awaited amendment "H" of the Slovenian Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Dissolution Act (the "Act") entered into force on 1 November 2023. The new provisions complete the transposition of Directive 2019/1023,[1] introducing three crucial sets of changes to the Slovenian insolvency and restructuring legislation.

In Short

In Short

In our practice, we have found that the most common reason for distressed companies to initiate reorganisation measures is a severe liquidity squeeze.

Driven by regulation, banks are increasingly reluctant to grant senior bridge financings, leading companies to resort to trade credits of major suppliers, such as deferrals or generous payment agreements. But these trade creditors are often unaware of significant third-party liability risks.

Shareholders of Austrian limited liability companies ("GmbH") often stipulate the right to purchase the shares of co-shareholders in certain events. These "share purchase rights" (Aufgriffsrechte) entitle the remaining shareholders to acquire the share of a shareholder when a contractually defined event (Aufgriffsfälle), like insolvency or the death of a shareholder, occurs. Often these rights are laid down in articles of association or a separate shareholders' agreement (Syndikatsvertrag). They are generally qualified as option rights.

After a delay of more than a year, an Act on Preventive Restructuring (the "Act") implementing the EU directive on preventive restructuring frameworks finally became effective in the Czech Republic on 23 September 2023. The long-awaited Act introduced a brand-new legal tool enabling viable enterprises in temporary financial distress to achieve restructuring outside insolvency proceedings. It is a voluntary and flexible process requiring cooperation with creditors, but not necessarily with all of them.

Who can use it?

A powerful tool afforded to a bankruptcy trustee or a chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") is the power to recover pre-bankruptcy transfers that are avoidable under federal bankruptcy law (or sometimes state law) because they were either made with the intent to defraud creditors or are constructively fraudulent because the debtor-transferor received less than reasonably equivalent value in exchange and was insolvent at the time, or was rendered insolvent as a consequence of the transfer.

The scope of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" shielding certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments from avoidance as fraudulent transfers has long been a magnet for controversy, particularly after the U.S. Supreme Court suggested (but did not hold) in Merit Mgmt. Grp., LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc., 138 S. Ct.

Debtors in non-U.S. bankruptcy or restructuring proceedings commonly seek to shield their U.S. assets from creditor collection efforts by seeking "recognition" of those proceedings in the United States in a case under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code. If a U.S. bankruptcy court recognizes the debtor's foreign proceeding, the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay prevents creditor collection efforts, including the commencement or continuation of any U.S. litigation involving the debtor or its U.S. assets. A U.S.

In a 2021 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit revived nearly 100 lawsuits seeking to recover fraudulent transfers made as part of the Madoff Ponzi scheme. In one of the latest chapters in that resurrected litigation, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held in Picard v. ABN AMRO Bank NV (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC), 654 B.R. 224 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.