From an economic perspective, especially in the current business environment, contractual freedom is the best legal method to satisfy the legitimate interests of individuals and to ensure the general benefit and, consequently, social progress. From this point of view, in any activity, every business is seeking to make a profit. Achieving this depends on a series of determinant factors as well as a certain number of risks which any business should assume when implementing its objectives.
Even at first blush, it is apparent that arbitration and insolvency make strange bedfellows.
Suppose you were a German bank lending to a Spanish debtor under a loan agreement governed by German law. Once your Spanish debtor stops paying, the bank would have to obtain a German legal judgment and would then have to enforce it in Spain. Any measure to secure the debtor's assets in the meantime, is typically subject to the jurisdiction where the asset is located, or subject to lengthy recognition proceedings. Having to resort to local law measures usually puts foreign creditors in a worse-off position than local ones.
Fraudulent debtors are trying to use a disputable interpretation of Article 37, para 4 of the Special Pledges Act on the outcome of enforcement over a special pledge against the rights of secured mortgage creditors.
The Bulgarian legislator is notorious for leaving gaps in enacted legislation. Often such legal gaps combined with inexperience, or even worse – corruption of judges, lead to questionable judgments being handed down. Several of these judgments have put mortgage creditors at risk of losing their collateral in the past year.
In December 2013, the Bank of Slovenia adopted exceptional measures resulting in the annulment of financial instruments held by shareholders and subordinated bondholders for the purpose of burden-sharing in rescuing five Slovenian banks.1 In its decision of 19 July 2016, the European Court of Justice confirmed that such burden-sharing is not contrary to EU law; however, the Slovenian public remains divided.
Since the European Commission adopted the recommendation on restructuring and second chance in 2014, it has been working on the evaluation of its initiative and the introduction of a European legal framework. In 2015 the Capital Markets Union Action Plan included the announcement of a legislative initiative on early restructuring and second chance. Finally, on 22 November 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a European Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks and a second chance for entrepreneurs.
Conversion law of “Decreto Sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016)
On 3 July, 2016, Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016 was converted into Law no. 119 of 30 June 2016, through various amendments.
Legge di conversione del “decreto sofferenze” (D.L. 59/2016)
In data 3 luglio 2016 è entrata in vigore la legge 30 giugno 2016 n. 119, di conversione del decreto legge n. 59 del 3 maggio 2016, al quale sono state apportate alcune rilevanti modifiche.
Law Decree no. 59 of 3 May 2016, which is already in force although it will require formal conversion into Law within 60 days in order not to lose its validity.
Among the provisions of the Law Decree, of particular relevance is the introduction of a new type of floating charge, namely “non-possessory pledge”, provided for by art. 1 of the Law Decree.
- Novità nel processo esecutivo introdotte con il DL 59/2016
E’ entrato in vigore il 4 maggio 2016 il DL 59/2016 “Disposizioni urgenti in materia di procedure esecutive e concorsuali, nonché a favore degli investitori in banche in liquidazione”. Tale decreto ha introdotto una serie di modifiche volte a facilitare e velocizzare il recupero dei crediti.