Less than three weeks after the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the Effects of the COVID-19 Infectious Disease Epidemic on Citizens and the Economy Act (Zakon o interventnih ukrepih za zajezitev epidemije COVID-19 in omilitev njenih posledic za državljane in gospodarstvo; the “Intervention Act”) came into force, new amendments are on their way.
Slimming down a company, corporate and financial restructuring will be on minds of many managers and company owners in the coming months.
In practice, when deciding to wind down a company, often a decision needs to be made whether to trigger a regular wind-down (likvidacija), a fast-track wind-down (prenehanje družbe po skrajšanem postopku) or a bankruptcy proceeding (stečaj). The main goal usually is to close down the company with less cost and no liability for the shareholder or the management.
1. What to address first
All insolvency proceedings (bankruptcy, and compulsory settlement) and court-sponsored financial restructurings (preventivna prestrukturiranja) in Slovenia are on hold until the recall of the COVID-19 epidemic (proceedings are currently expected to be on hold until 1 July 2020) (the "Recall"). During this time courts will not conduct the above-mentioned proceedings and no procedural and material deadlines will run.
Barely any region, sector or business remains unaffected by the exponentially growing pandemic. Stock market values, and thus also valuations for private companies, are plummeting due to the existing uncertainties.
Against this background, the question arises of how to deal with signed share or asset purchase agreements, if closing is still imminent. From the buyer's point of view, a valuation from the time before the COVID 19 crisis may now appear very expensive. The pandemic may trigger not only contractual provisions but also various legal remedies.
This week the Slovenian Government sent a new law - the first big anti-corona law package - the Intervention Measures to Mitigate the Effects of the coronavirus (COVID-19) Infectious Disease Epidemic on Citizens and the Economy Act into the legislative procedure.
On Monday, 16th March 2020, the Federal Act on provisional measures to prevent the dissemination of COVID-19 (COVID-19-Measures Act) came into effect in Austria.
La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo, Sala Primera, de 22 de mayo, remarca que determinados comportamientos constitutivos de calificación culpable del concurso pueden provocar una inversión de la carga de la prueba sobre la incidencia del comportamiento de los administradores en la generación o incremento del déficit concursal, pero sigue sin ofrecer la «justificación añadida» de la atribución de la responsabilidad concursal.
1. La reforma del artículo 172 bis de la Ley Concursal
Se contiene una descripción y valoración general de la Directiva (UE) 2019/1023.
1. Introducción
En todo tipo de procesos y, entre ellos, en los incidentes concursales, la denuncia por la parte demandada de la falta de jurisdicción o de competencia no puede plantearse como una suerte de excepción en la contestación a la demanda o en momento posterior, sino que debe promoverse con carácter previo a la contestación, mediante declinatoria (art. 64.1 Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil [LEC]).
La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 710/2019, de 8 de marzo, resuelve en casación, por primera vez, creo, el extremo relativo a la oponibilidad al concurso de una condición resolutoria acompañada de una cláusula penal de retención de la totalidad del precio ya pagado por el comprador inmobiliario insolvente. Según la Sala, la condición resolutoria (inmobiliaria) es plenamente oponible al concurso; en este caso se hallaba inscrita, pero no parece que esta condición haya sido relevante para su efectividad.