Explore the vast range of titles available.

The need to harmonize corporate insolvency legislation has led to the adoption by the European Union of the relevant regulations – the Recommendation on a New Approach to Business Failure and Insolvency and the Directive 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks, on discharge of debt and disqualifications, and on measures to increase the efficiency of procedures concerning restructuring, insolvency and discharge of debt, and amending Directive (EU) 2017/1132 (Directive on restructuring and insolvency). The purpose of the article is to reveal the essence of preventive restructuring, to assess the main differences in the definition of preventive restructuring in accordance with the provisions of the EU Directive and the Code of Ukraine on bankruptcy procedures. In this work, preventive restructuring is considered as the main tool for timely prevention of bankruptcy, the implementation of which in the EU member states has significant differences. An overview of the provisions of EU regulations on preventive restructuring and the process of their implementation in the member states was done. A comparative analysis of the EU directive on the mechanisms of preventive restructuring and certain provisions of the Code of Ukraine on bankruptcy procedures related to reorganization prior to the commencement of bankruptcy proceedings was carried out. It was found that the Code lacks such principles as early appeal, protection of new financing, taking into account the peculiarities of small and medium-sized businesses. Differences in the use of other principles were also identified. Ukrainian legislation encourages debtors to liquidate their business rather than to carry out financial restructuring. Taken into account the European vector of development, today Ukraine has a real chance to improve insolvency legislation based on the provisions of the EU Directive.

The present work approaches the legal institution of the restructuring of budgetary claims from the perspective of the procedure to be followed by the tax debtors interested in agreeing on the need to extinguish their budgetary claims with the desire to avoid the insolvency of the company. We bring up that the restructuring of budgetary claims was thought so as to offer a helping hand, especially to large companies in a situation of major financial difficulty. This present study aims to provide a synthetic picture of the steps to be followed in order to successfully complete this procedure. For this, the procedure is divided into three stages, namely the pre-stage, the procedure itself and the completion of the procedure. The acts to be performed at the pre-stage refer to the notification of the restructuring intention, the restructuring plan and the prudent private creditor test. The stage itself of the restructuring starts with the submission of the application to the tax authority, which will be settled by it either with a decision approving the restructuring or with a decision rejecting it, or with a decision approving a payment facility. Once the restructuring is approved, it will be carried out in accordance with the restructuring plan, under the supervision of the persons designated for this purpose. During its development, the restructuring process may undergo changes that will materialize either in the modification of the restructuring plan or in the modification of the payment facilitation decision, if such a facility has been approved. Whether there is a change in the restructuring process, or not, once it has started, it will have to be completed. If the restructuring plan is successfully implemented, the fiscal debtor's budgetary claims will be extinguished and he will be able to go on with the economic activity for which he was established. If, however, the restructuring plan fails, the tax debtor risks being subject to forced execution by the tax authority, or even to request its insolvency, which could lead to the cessation of its existence.

In 2019, the Romanian legislator regulated for the first time, in the content of O.G. no. 6/2019, the legal institution of the restructuring of budgetary claims on the establishment of fiscal facilities. After that, a series of successive normative acts were adopted, meant to prolong the effects of the initial normative act, but also to bring new and necessary clarifications to the content of this legal institution and the procedure for its development from the moment of initiation until the final extinguishment of its effects on the public budget and the patrimony of the involved budgetary debtor. As we have already shown in the content of the present paper, the analysis of the way in which the restructuring of budgetary claims is regulated has allowed us to draw a series of conclusions concerning this legal institution: a. the restructuring of the budgetary claims is a relatively new legal institution that has been adopted through a normative act other than the Fiscal Procedure Code, which it does not, directly and explicitly, amend or supplement, but indirectly by the fact that it can interfere in the conduct of the fiscal procedure, as well as by the fact that it refers to fiscal law institutions regulated by the Fiscal Procedure Code and which thus bears substantial changes; b. the restructuring of the budgetary claims is essentially different from the other forms of financial support established by the provisions of the Fiscal Procedure Code and in particular from the payment facilities designed to provide the budgetary debtor with a grace period in order to obtain the funds necessary to extinguish by payment his obligations to the public budgets. It is also different from the cancellation of tax claims established by the Fiscal Procedure Code because it becomes applicable when the collection of tax receivables becomes useless, inefficient, or impossible. c. although it differs from the rescheduling and adjournment of payment, or the cancellation of tax claims, however, in regulating the restructuring of budgetary claims, the legislator appeals to them themselves, in the form in which they were established in the provisions of the Fiscal Procedure Code. d. the local tax authorities have the right to decide (they are not obliged by law to do so) if they use this legal institution, in the process of collecting the debts due to the budgets they manage; e. in terms of content, the restructuring refers to any kind of budgetary claim (due to the general consolidated budget), in connection with which enforceable titles have also been issued (i.e. the claim has become certain and demandable).

This study provides a conceptual framework for the analysis of the questions of out-of-court debt restructuring from a policy-oriented perspective. The starting point of the analysis is given by the World Bank principles for effective insolvency and creditor rights systems. The study offers an overview of out-of-court restructuring, which is not seen as fundamentally opposed to formal insolvency procedures. Actually, the study contemplates different restructuring techniques as forming a continuum to the treatment of financial difficulties. The study discusses the advantages and disadvantages of all the debt restructuring techniques, and concludes, in this regard, that a legal system may contain a number of options a menu that can cover different sets of circumstances. In the end, the law may offer a toolbox with very different instruments that the parties may use depending on the specific facts of the case. The study also provides a checklist that can be used to examine the features of a legal system that bear a direct influence on debt restructuring activities.

In Slovenia, many companies try to avoid bankruptcy with the introduction of a compulsory settlement procedure, but only a handful of companies successfully complete the compulsory settlement in the sense of a final repayment of creditors in accordance with the adopted financial restructuring plan. The article identified the factors affecting the confirmation of a compulsory settlement as well as the factors affecting the final repayment of creditors and, thus, permanently eliminated the causes of insolvency. The factors were divided into internal and external, whereby the impact of factors on a successfully completed compulsory settlement was verified using quantitative and qualitative research methods.

The purpose of this book is to provide a coherent overview of the insolvency systems found around the world. Its intended audience includes academics, judges, lawyers, and policymakers. Its focus is on businesses rather than natural persons. The authors hope to give the reader a sense of some of the principal approaches to managing the general default of a business debtor. The authors will discuss the nature of the costs and benefits arising from the various policy choices legislators have made. In the process, they will emphasize the close interrelationship among various elements of an insolvency regime so that these elements can be viewed as part of an overall system and not just as a series of policy decisions about particular rules, such as the method of initiation of an insolvency case or the balance struck in setting the boundaries of an avoidance power. The organization of the book reflects our view of insolvency laws as complete systems, including not only the 'insolvency' or 'bankruptcy' code of a jurisdiction but also closely related laws and the institutional framework in which those laws are applied. The book takes a systematic approach to a variety of topics related to credit and insolvency regulation. The functional analysis starts with the study of debt enforcement, continues with an examination of general corporate insolvency legislation, corporate rehabilitation proceedings, informal workouts, employee rights, judicial and administrative institutions, and the considerations key to cross-border insolvency proceedings.

A bankruptcy process can allow a company to reorganise, often requiring asset sales, a change in ownership and partial debt forgiveness on the part of creditors. The bankruptcy process is one of the legal mechanisms that are the least standardised and homogenised around the world. Virtually all countries have different systems. In a nut‐ shell, there are two different types of bankruptcy procedure. The process will be either \"creditor friendly\" or \"debtor friendly\". The possibility of bankruptcy is a key element of signalling theory. Moreover, conflicts between shareholders and creditors, as predicted by agency theory, appear only when the company is close to the financial precipice. In bankruptcy, managers can be required to cover liabilities in the event of gross negligence. Restructurings concern companies which are considered to be viable, subject to certain conditions, often requiring operational changes in management, strategy, scope, production or marketing methods, and so on.

Article 1 These Standards are formulated in accordance with the Accounting Standards for Enterprises—Basic Standards for the purpose of regulating the recognition and measurement of Contingencies, and the disclosure of relevant information.

This article examines key aspects of corporate insolvency law. The main research jurisdictions are the US, England, France, and Germany. This study adopts a functional approach that compares different legal regimes of corporate insolvency law in light of the legislative changes related to the EU directive (EU) 2019/1023. This directive, to some extent, triggered a paradigm shift, leading to varying degrees of reform across all EU member states and even influencing non-EU jurisdictions. This article is structured into four parts. The introduction provides an overview of corporate insolvency laws. The second part focuses on directive (EU) 2019/1023 on preventive restructuring frameworks, which considers the requirements regarding the classes of creditors and the related procedures. The third section examines the differences and similarities in the conceptual framework of the corporate insolvency law in the selected jurisdictions, with particular emphasis on their approach—whether creditor-friendly or debtor-friendly—and their bankruptcy procedures. Finally, the last section highlights jurisdictional divergences. This article contributes to the understanding of corporate insolvency law as a complex international issue by comparing national approaches and offering legal recommendations.

Economic transitions in countries that move from state planning and redistribution to market exchange create business opportunities but also uncertainty, because many interdependent factors—modes of exchange, types of products, and forms of organizations—are in flux. Uncertainty is even greater when the country's political institutions remain authoritarian because the rule of law is weak and state bureaucrats retain power over the economy. This study of listed firms in China, which has recently seen economic transition but persistent authoritarianism, shows that in such contexts, firms can reduce uncertainty by developing relationships with state bureaucrats, which help firms learn how state bureaucracies operate and engender trust between firms and bureaucrats. Together, knowledge and trust stabilize operations and help persuade bureaucrats to lighten regulatory burdens, grant firms access to state-controlled resources, and improve government oversight. Our results show that as economic transitions proceed and uncertainty increases, business-state ties increasingly improve firm performance. We also investigate two likely contingencies, industry and firm size, and two important causal mechanisms, access to bank loans and protection from related-party loans, and show that the value of business-state relations varies over time, depending on the trajectory of both economic and political institutions.