Search

Transaction avoidance is part of insolvency proceedings. The successful application of the rules on transaction avoidance allows the value of the debtor’s assets to be maximised, and thus increases the satisfaction of creditors’ claims. In the European Union, the substantive rules on insolvency law still are a matter of the national laws of Member States. However, trends in the policy-making actions of the European Union reveal that various initiatives have been proposed to establish certain rules on transaction avoidance which should increase recovery rates for creditors and contribute to the proper functioning of the domestic market. This article focuses on the general aims of transaction avoidance and provides a critical assessment of the proposed harmonisation of the rules on transaction avoidance in European Union law. The authors found that the proposed rules on the harmonisation of transaction avoidance rules in European Union insolvency law may actually discourage businesses regarding the exercise of the freedom of establishment, and may also intervene in the substantive insolvency and civil law regulations of Member States.

The issuance of a writ of execution is one of the necessary conditions to begin the enforcement process, because without a writ of execution this process cannot be started. When a party to a dispute does not comply with a court decision in good faith (voluntarily), the other party has the right to apply to the court for the issuance of a writ of execution based on this decision, which can be submitted to the bailiff for enforcement. This article examines the conditions under which the court has the right to issue a writ of execution and what problems arise in judicial practice when solving this issue. The article examines how the resolution part of a decision should be formulated in order to ensure the prompt issuance of a writ of execution, alongside how the enforceability of the decision is understood when solving the issue of the issuance of the writ of execution. The article also examines the cases in which an enforceable document (a writ of execution) can be returned after the completion of the enforcement case, instead of issuing a new one.

This article analyzes the problems of enforcement of non-pecuniary (personal) judgments. Such judgments are characterized by a specific coercive enforcement procedure, as it can only be executed by a specific person (debtor), and ordinary enforcement measures are generally not applied. The legal acts regulating the forced enforcement process determine several sanctions that the court has the right to apply to a debtor who does not comply with a personal court decision. Such sanctions are regulated in Article 145(9), Article 273(3), and Article 771(6) of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania. In court practice, a number of questions arise regarding the interpretation and application of the bases of these sanctions and their mutual compatibility. This article examines the cases in which the court should apply the sanctions established in the aforementioned articles and how their application allows the goals of the enforcement proceedings to be achieved. The article raises the question of whether the grounds for the application of these sanctions are adequately regulated, or whether the judicial practice interpreting them is justified.

This article analyses dishonesty of the debtor as a condition for the refusal to commence personal bankruptcy proceedings. It examines what actions may indicate the debtor’s dishonesty and how they should be interpreted. The question also arises as to whether dishonesty acts of the debtor should be interpreted in the same way, depending on the nature of the debtor, where a debtor is a consumer or an entrepreneur.

The article focuses on the discharge procedure for entrepreneurs as prescribed in the Directive on restructuring and insolvency. It analyses the elements of the discharge procedure for entrepreneurs that are harmonised with the Directive and whether it ensures a proper balance between the interests of the debtor and creditors. The author assesses how the concept of an ‘entrepreneur’ should be perceived under the scope of the Directive, the requirements of commencement of discharge of debt procedure and whether it indeed provides a fresh start for entrepreneurs after the end of this procedure. Where relevant, the article focuses on the comparison between the discharge procedure in the Directive and the rules of personal bankruptcy established in the US Bankruptcy Code (Chapters 7 and 13) which served as an inspiration to the Directive. Comparison of the relevant rules on the discharge procedures established in the Directive and the US Bankruptcy Code allows us to better understand the aims and goals of certain provisions of the discharge procedure in the European Union insolvency law and provide a conclusion on whether the proposed model of discharge procedure is effective. The author discusses whether the discharge procedure in the Directive managed to establish a fair balance between the interests of the debtor and creditors and whether it will improve entrepreneurship conditions in the European Union.

This article focuses on the compatibility of electronic enforcement proceedings and the right to a fair trial. Since Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is applicable to enforcement proceedings, enforcement proceedings must be effective and satisfy the requirement of fair trial. Electronic enforcement proceedings need to find a fair balance between accelerated enforcement and protection of human rights. Thus, the authors analyse what procedural guarantees of fair trial are applicable in electronic enforcement proceedings and how they are compatible with the protection of human rights. In order to answer these questions, the authors first analyse what procedural guarantees of fair trial are applicable in electronic enforcement proceedings and what is the application, ratione personae, of Article 6 of the ECHR in such proceedings. Second, the authors focus on some specific issues of electronic enforcement proceedings: electronic issuance and submission of enforceable documents and electronic auctions. The analysis encompasses the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights, and the regulation of enforcement proceedings and case law of various states. Third, the authors discuss the problems of liability for violations of the right to fair electronic enforcement proceedings.

The duty of disclosure is a fundamental precondition of fair arbitration proceedings. Though the importance of this duty in investment arbitration is obvious, its content and application pose various questions which require complex analysis. The lack of common binding sources of the duty of disclosure leads to practical difficulties and may curb the effectiveness of arbitration proceedings and lead to successful challenges of arbitral decisions. The question arises as to which relevant information and circumstances arbitrators shall disclose to the parties and how. This research aims to reveal the standards for arbitrators to reveal information which may be relevant for ensuring the fairness of arbitration proceedings and how this duty should be exercised. The authors analyze the relevant rules on the duty of disclosure in the rules of arbitration and case law. Special attention is drawn to the protection of the right to a fair trial. The authors find that though there are no generally accepted standards of the exercise of the duty of disclosure in investment arbitration proceedings, arbitrators shall reveal to the parties all information which may be relevant to assess their impartiality. Furthermore, the exercise of this duty is continuous during arbitration proceedings. The latest development of the case law of the European Court on Human Rights in the Beg S.p.a. v. Italy case reveals the practical problems of the application of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights in arbitration proceedings, and also highlights the importance of the proper exercise of the duty of disclosure in arbitration proceedings.

Enforcement proceedings shall be effective and all procedural guarantees of the right to a fair trial shall be ensured. This article examines the problems of recovery from property pledged by mortgage or pledged for the benefit of third parties. The Law on Civil Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania allows recovery from such property in enforcement proceedings only when the creditor does not contest this possibility. However, this creditor right is not absolute, and the creditor shall not abuse this this right. This article analyses how the protection of a claim secured by a mortgage or pledge must be reconciled with the goal of an effective enforcement process when there is a need to recover from property secured by a mortgage or pledge. The article assesses the procedural problems that arise for the bailiff in order to perform recovery from such property, the legal status of the mortgagee or pledge creditor, and the rights and obligations in the process of execution. The relevant case law shows that one of the fundamental problems in such collection procedures is the objection of the mortgage or pledge creditor to the recovery of the property pledged to them. It also examines how such consent should be expressed, what legal consequences arise when the creditor opposes such recovery, and in which cases recovery from mortgaged or pledged property is possible without the creditor’s consent.

This article focuses on the coordination of main and secondary insolvency proceedings in cross-border insolvency cases. The authors analyse how main and secondary insolvency proceedings should be coordinated in different aspects of these proceedings, namely: the opening of insolvency proceedings, the exercise of creditors’ rights, and the treatment of the debtor’s assets. The procedural peculiarities of the opening of secondary insolvency proceedings are also discussed. The article also examines how insolvency practitioners and courts in parallel cross-border insolvency proceedings should coordinate their actions to ensure proper response to the debtor’s insolvency problems. Moreover, the authors assess the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and whether is compatible with the goal of effective cross-border insolvency proceedings.

This article examines the issue of the application of the civil liability of the director of a company for the failure to commence insolvency proceedings in time. This form of liability is specific, relating to the breach of the obligation to initiate insolvency proceedings in time, and its purpose is to compensate the company’s creditors for damage caused. Following the adoption of the Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities and the reform of the insolvency process in Lithuania, the question arises as to the process in which the liability of the director of a company for the failure to commence insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings in time should be examined. In order to answer these questions, this article examines the nature, legal regulations, and case law of this liability in the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Poland. The analysis of the problems of the application of the civil liability of a director for failure to commence insolvency proceedings in time has focused on the identification of unlawful actions as the main conditions of tort liability, which has triggered a lot of questions in the case law. The purpose of this article is to reveal when the director of a company has a duty to commence insolvency proceedings, as well as the circumstances to be considered in deciding on the fulfillment of this duty.

This article continues the research of peculiarities seen in the insolvency proceedings of legal entities and examines the problems of determination and payment of administrative costs of the bankruptcy proceedings of legal entities. The authors analyze the features of these costs in bankruptcy proceedings and how they can be identified. It also assesses the order in which administrative expenses must be paid in cases where the expenses do not exceed the estimate of administrative expenses, exceed it, or if assets of the legal person are insufficient to reimburse these costs.

This article examines the goals and procedure of the sale of an enterprise as a going concern in corporate bankruptcy proceedings. It argues that the goals of the sale of an enterprise are not in accordance with the classic goals of bankruptcy proceedings, as they relate to the broader economic and social goals that can be achieved by selling an enterprise as an asset. This article also focuses on the comparative analysis of international legal regulation by examining how this procedure is regulated in the bankruptcy law of Estonia, Latvia, Poland, and France. The procedure for the sale of an enterprise established by the Law on Insolvency of Legal Entities and its problems are also examined. The authors consider how the sale of an enterprise should be ensured at the earliest possible stage of bankruptcy proceedings, and provide a proposal to change the procedure for the sale of the enterprise, including the court in this procedure. This paper also analyzes how bids to buy a company should be submitted, what actions should be performed by an insolvency administrator, how the interests of employees should be ensured, and what requirements should be established by law for the buyer of an enterprise.

This article focuses on the implementation of a stay of individual enforcement actions in corporate restructuring proceedings. The authors analyse the general goals of a stay of individual enforcement actions in restructuring proceedings by considering, for instance, the economic reasons for such a stay, when it should be applicable, and the exceptions that should be established for its application. The Directive on restructuring and insolvency, adopted on 20 June 2019, reforms the regulation of a stay of individual enforcement actions in Member States of the European Union, aims to increase the efficiency of restructuring proceedings by providing legal instruments to facilitate a debtor’s negotiation of a restructuring plan, and provides certain rules as to how a debtor’s assets should be protected during these negotiations. Namely, a stay of individual enforcement actions and the protection of essential executory contracts should protect a debtor and ensure the equality of all creditors (pari passu) during the negotiation of a restructuring plan. However, in practice these goals result in less protection – especially for ordinary creditors. The authors analyse which aspects of a stay of individual enforcement actions are harmonized under the Directive on restructuring and insolvency, and whether they are sufficient to ensure the effective negotiation of a restructuring plan. Nevertheless, a fair balance between the interests of the debtor and their creditors should be ensured in restructuring proceedings, and the authors assess whether or not such a balance is established.

This article examines the meaning of fraudulent bankruptcy and the problems inherent in applications of fraudulent bankruptcy. It proposes how the regulation of fraudulent bankruptcy can be improved, and considers the historical development and legal regulation of the institute of fraudulent bankruptcy in foreign countries. Also considered is the amendment of fraudulent bankruptcy introduced by the Law on Insolvency of Enterprises of the Republic of Lithuania. The authors assert that the new law on insolvency proceedings has fundamentally changed the procedure for the examination of applications for fraudulent bankruptcy. They argue this to be the case since the court must decide not only on the grounds of fraudulent bankruptcy, but also on the persons who caused the fraudulent bankruptcy by the same decision. In such cases, also discussed is how the court must ensure the right to a fair trial and the effectiveness of insolvency (bankruptcy) proceedings is discussed, and the status of the person(s) involved and their procedural rights and obligations.

This article analyzes the concept of viability and its interpretation in insolvency law in relation to the restructuring of enterprises where creditors provide financial support in order to avoid bankruptcy. The significance of viability in insolvency law is assessed, as this concept is regulated by international legal acts regulating insolvency proceedings, i.e. European Union law. The complex nature of viability and the assessment of the economic situation of the company are analyzed. The author also examines the precise meaning of viability when applying the Law on Insolvency of Enterprises of the Republic of Lithuania, and the objectives and economic justification for the establishment of this concept. The author asserts that viability is an economic category, the assessment of which requires not only legal, but also special economic, financial, and market knowledge. Recent case law on the interpretation and application of the viability condition in the restructuring process is analyzed. Moreover, the author suggests which circumstances may prove the non-viability of the enterprise and when bankruptcy proceedings should be commenced.

This article examines the problems of the application of the Law on Insolvency of Enterprises of the Republic of Lithuania as related to the commencement of insolvency proceedings. The new insolvency law introduces a new procedure for the commencement of insolvency proceedings that applies to restructuring and bankruptcy proceedings. In the authors’ opinion, the application of this procedure can raise both theoretical and practical problems that have not been analysed yet.

This article examines some practical problems of the application of the Law on the Insolvency of Enterprises of the Republic of Lithuania related to the effectiveness of insolvency proceedings. Though the new insolvency law seeks to ensure effective insolvency process, the analysis of certain provisions reveals certain problems of this act, which could significantly impact the effectiveness of this process.

This article focuses on extrajudicial (out-of-court) bankruptcy proceedings. It discusses how the new Law on Insolvency of Enterprises has changed the legal regulation of this process. The article examines the procedure of commencement of out-of-court bankruptcy proceedings, alongside the issues of informing creditors and the gathering of the creditors’ meeting. The statutory conditions for out-of-court bankruptcy proceedings are thoroughly discussed. The article also examines the competence of the creditors’ meeting in such bankruptcy proceedings. In essence, the creditors’ meeting performs the functions assigned to the court in ordinary bankruptcy proceedings. In practice, however, there are problems with the competence of the creditors’ meeting, for instance, the application of fraudulent bankruptcy. Furthermore, the article discusses the role of the court in this process. Though the court is not active in extrajudicial bankruptcy proceedings, the practical examples raise doubts as to whether the court should be allowed to interfere in the competence of the creditors’ meeting in deciding certain issues relevant to the bankruptcy proceedings.

This article analyzes public order as a ground for the non-recognition of foreign court judgments in the case-law of Lithuanian courts. Violation of public order is often used by the parties to challenge the recognition of foreign court judgments. Firstly, the authors seek to reveal the content of public order as a ground for the non-recognition of foreign court judgments. The concept of public policy must be in-terpreted narrowly, thus ensuring the effectiveness of the process of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and equality of parties. Secondly, the authors raise a debatable question regarding the validity of Lithuanian case law interpreting international treaties concluded between the Republic of Lithuania and other states, as far as it is related to public order as grounds for the non-recognition of foreign judgments. The authors analyze whether these international treaties concluded more than two decades ago are still compatible with the current international standards. Thirdly, this article presents the development of the application of the public policy clause in separate areas of legal relations. Violations of public order are linked to fundamental principles of law and human rights. Such case law is justified and meets the requirements of a narrow interpretation of public order. The courts have found violations of public policy in cases when the child was not heard in person by the court in family cases. Also, courts have found violations of public policy in certain commercial disputes.

On 30 January 2019 the Council of Europe adopted the first guidelines on electronic evidence in civil and administrative proceedings (hereinafter also ‘Guidelines’).1 The authors question if the Guidelines already require some revisions. They also consider, whether the revised Guidelines should provide more practical advice to courts and legal practitioners related to electronic evidence. Several aspects have been identified regarding the use of the Guidelines by the courts in particular with the regard to the rapid development of online dispute resolutions systems and use of artificial intelligence algorithms in judicial systems. Both authors took an active part in the preparatory works of the Guidelines and believe it is in the interest of justice that the Guidelines should be regularly updated addressing and reflecting technological developments, new business models and evolving case-law.

This article examines the practical problems deriving from the exercise of the creditor’s right to information regarding the course of corporate bankruptcy proceedings. The legal regulation of foreign states shows that creditors shall participate in bankruptcy proceedings actively. Namely, timely information about the corporate bankruptcy proceedings allows creditors to exercise other rights and impact the decision-making in this process. Disputes often arise regarding how creditors can use this right to information and what legitimate restrictions can be established for its implementation.

This article analyzes estate administration and realization as well as the concept of estate in bankruptcy proceedings. It also analyzes which methods of estate realization are established in bankruptcy law, and which of them allow selling estate faster. The article evaluates how courts ensure the effective realization of estate in bankruptcy proceedings.

The goal of this article is to analyse the practical problems of the application of Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia regulation which establishes derived jurisdiction for related claims. Firstly, it focuses on the nature of derived jurisdiction in the EU law. Secondly, it analyses in detail the main elements of this provision (connectedness of claims and irreconcilability of judgments) and the doctrine of the abuse of the EU law. Thirdly, it covers the application of Article 8(1) of the Brussels Ia regulation in cases deriving from infringement of competition, patent and design laws.