GRATA, - 2020,

GRATA Monthly Summary, January-February 2020, Kyrgyzstan

:

Table of content:

1 On clarification on the procedure for installing and , using equipment designed to accept payments using bank payment cards or electronic money

2 , On prohibition of activities related to geological

exploration for the purpose of prospecting, exploration

, , and development of uranium and thorium deposits in

the Kyrgyz Republic

3 " On adoption of the Law on the national budget of the

Although service of a statutory demand or winding-up petition on a company is a blunt and unsophisticated debt recovery tool, it will often have the desired effect for a creditor as they are seldom ignored and ignored only at the company's peril. It can often prompt payment of the sum due, or judgment owed, where previously there has been prevarication and empty promises of payment.

Here is a reminder of some important issues a (solvent) company should consider if a statutory demand or petition is served upon it.

Doing nothing is not an option

The threat of insolvency proceedings against a corporate debtor can greatly assist a creditor's primary objective of getting paid, preferably in advance of everyone else. This is particularly so where the debtor is prevaricating but there is no genuine dispute that the sum in question is due and owing. Although the courts decry the use of the winding-up procedure as a means of debt collection, it is often a very effective tool.

Consider the following when faced with a corporate debtor who is refusing, without genuine reason, to settle its debts:

In a recent decision issued by Lord Drummond Young, one of the Scottish insolvency judges in the Court of Session, useful guidance has been issued which will be of interest to practitioners having to deal with the, not uncommon, situation of a retiring practitioner and replacement with a current partner in the same firm.

Case summary:

When a contractor failed to pay certain agreed invoices the sub-contractor issued a winding up petition. The contractor applied to halt the advertising of the petition on the grounds that the debts were bona fide disputed on substantial grounds as there was a cross claim which exceeded the amount claimed. The court refused to halt proceedings because the absence of a withholding notice under the HGCRA meant that there were no substantial grounds for disputing the petition.

Comment:

Almost five years after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act, the Supreme Court recently ruled in Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., et al v. United States that attorneys are “debt relief agencies” who are limited in their ability to provide pre-bankruptcy planning advice to consumers and obligating them to provide additional disclosures in their advertisements.

Attorneys Are Debt Relief Agencies Under BAPCPA

FTC Amends Telemarketing Sales Rule: On July 29, 2010, the FTC announced new amendments to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that will prohibit debt relief companies from collecting advanced fees.

The following is a list of some recent larger U.S. bankruptcy filings in various industries. To the extent you are a creditor to any of these debtors, or other entities which may have filed for bankruptcy protection, you as a creditor are entitled to certain protections under the Bankruptcy Code.

ADVERTISING

Advertising firm Vertis Holdings Inc. has landed in bankruptcy court for a second time, filing a prepackaged Chapter 11.

PUBLISHING

FOLLETT HIGHER EDUCATION GROUP v. BERMAN (January 21, 2011)

On September 25, 2008 in Washington, D.C., the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) held an all-day workshop, entitled “Consumer Protection and the Debt Settlement Industry,” to explore growth in the for-profit debt settlement industry and to examine its impact on consumers and businesses.