The right to set-off claims and obligations in insolvency proceedings is an important tool for creditors in order to protect themselves against the insolvency risk of a contractual counterparty. This article gives a short overview of the rules for set-off in insolvency proceedings in Austria and certain CEE jurisdictions not taking into account special provisions for close-out netting and similar transactions.

Austria

Set-off in insolvency proceedings

The conundrum evolves

The Croatian Consumer Bankruptcy Act (Zakon o stečaju potrošača; "ZSP")[1], which entered into force on 1 January 2016, for the first time introduces the legal concept of consumer bankruptcy into the legal system.

The Hungarian Ministry of Justice acknowledged the recent criticism aimed at the difficulties regarding the enforcement of monetary claims in the country and plans to amend the relevant laws to make creditors' lives easier. As currently envisaged, these amendments will in the near future change such fundamental laws as the Civil Code, the act on court enforcement, and the act on insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. This article provides a summary of the envisaged amendments.
 
Civil Code

Legal Status  

The recently adopted Croatian Bankruptcy Act ("SZ")[1] sets out a new integrated pre-bankruptcy and bankruptcy regime. SZ has entirely replaced the previous bankruptcy act that was in force for 18 years, as well as provisions regulating pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings prescribed under the Act on Financial Operations and Pre-bankruptcy Settlement

The Hungarian Parliament has adopted a new legal regime setting out debt settlement procedures for private individuals.  The act will enter into force on 1 September 2015, and will have a huge impact on the business of banks and financial undertakings in Hungary.

The Bulgarian Corporate Commercial Bank ("CCB")’s insolvency has resulted in a variety of changes to the Bulgarian banking legislation. Lifting of bank secrecy in cases of bank insolvency is the newest addition to the pile of governmental attempts at accountability and transparency stemming from the CCB affair.  

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a 2-1 opinion, recognized a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case could be dismissed through a “structured dismissal” that deviates from the priority scheme set forth in Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code.1 With its decision, the Third Circuit joined the Second Circuit in rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s per se exclusion on “structured dismissals” that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s prio

As the market for so-called “unitranche” credit facilities continues to increase, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court had an opportunity recently to answer positively the question of whether bankruptcy courts will enforce the Agreement Among Lenders (“AAL”) (a form of intercreditor agreement) used in such structures.