The events in the last few years have had significant and lasting impacts on business in general and restructuring in particular, with the latter referring to the various options available for firms experiencing difficulties. European economies, hit by both the upheavals caused by the health crisis and geopolitical tensions, have also been a

On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a directive for the harmonisation of certain aspects of insolvency laws across EU member states. One of the key elements of this proposal is the introduction of harmonised pre-pack proceedings aimed at increasing the efficiency of business sales in insolvency proceedings.

Background

The impact of the opening of insolvency proceedings on options granted in combined contracts (for example, a lease contract containing a call option for the leased real estate) had been in dispute for a long time.

Decision

The Austrian Supreme Court held that call options granted in lease contracts where the option fee has been paid do not expire with the opening of insolvency proceedings, nor are they subject to the right of the insolvency administrator to terminate the lease contract.

NFTs are a hot topic, but their treatment under insolvency law – which will receive more attention due to the recent crisis – has not yet been explored in much detail. This contribution aims to provide a brief overview of the most relevant issues.

NFTs as collateral

Due to their clear structure and organisation, insolvency proceedings are ideally suited for digitalisation processes. It is therefore more than surprising that despite Austria's pioneering role in the digitalisation of the justice system with its Justice 3.0 project, there has been no significant development in the expansion of digitalisation in insolvency proceedings since the early 2000s. The situation is different in Croatia, however, where the new Insolvency Act came into force in 2015 and was used as an opportunity to open the path towards digitisation.

On June 2, 2022, the Austrian Financial Court ruled on the arm's length nature of a) the liability commission in context with a shareholder loan, b) the Transfer Price of products and c) the crediting of trade receivables (GZ. RV/7102082/2009).

Background

Voting rights in Austrian restructuring proceedings (which require the approval of more than half the creditors holding more than half of the company's debt) are often contested, as the company's assets are liquidated if the creditors vote against the proposed restructuring or debt cut.

Secured creditors may only participate in the vote with the unsecured part of their claim and must file an application for the right to vote. It was unclear whether such an application for a voting right for a specific amount could subsequently be changed.

There has been a longstanding need in Hungary for a legal instrument to rescue distressed companies. The only legal solution so far for such companies was the unpopular and inflexible bankruptcy procedure, which is also risky for the debtor, as failure will automatically turn into a liquidation proceeding and the company will cease to exist. Bankruptcy, with its formalistic procedures and limited involvement of creditors in the decision-making, has done more harm than good. It also usually stigmatised the debtor.

As of 17 July 2021 the EU restructuring directive¹ was implemented in Austria by the new Austrian Restructuring Code (ReC). The ReC allows debtors to enter formal restructuring proceedings before actually becoming insolvent. To minimise the disruption to debtor's operations, the proceedings are not public, a ban on enforcement of collateral can be implemented and the rights of counterparts to amend or terminate existing contracts are significantly curtailed.

For many companies and the management, the crisis means that familiar business decisions and concepts, including the implementation of restructuring steps, have to be adapted to the crisis. There is a risk that the company will become insolvent and that the management will be held liable due to no or a too slow response.