Die Prüfung der Zahlungsunfähigkeit mittels Algorithmen

Even after various decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice on the concept of illiquidity under insolvency law, the methodology of the test remains unclear. This also applies to the justiciability of business forecasts. The thesis examines whether and within what limits testing for illiquidity can be performed by digital analysis of accounting data. It also describes the extent to which short- and medium-term liquidity planning can be supported by quantitative forecasts. Statistical methods as well as approaches from the field of artificial intelligence are described.

Aantekeninge: A stay of legal proceedings in insolvency law: a reappraisal

Beste internasionale praktyk verg dat die concursus creditorum wat teweeggebring word by die aanvang van insolvensieverrigtinge, regsgedinge teen die skuldenaar opskort ten opsigte van eise wat deel vorm van die concursus. Die Suid-Afrikaanse wetgewing wat hoofsaaklik insolvensie- en likwidasieverrigtinge beheers, is die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 en die Maatskappywet 61 van 1973. Albei wette kan vertolk word om gevolg te gee aan ’n algemene opskorting van regsgedinge teen die skuldenaar wanneer ’n concursus creditorum ontstaan. Ongelukkig het die Suid-Afrikaanse howe nie die wetgewing noodwendig op hierdie wyse vertolk nie. Beide wette verleen ’n grasietydperk na die ontstaan van ’n concursus creditorum waarbinne ’n skuldeiser die geleentheid gebied word om hangende regsgedinge voort te sit sonder toestemming van die hof. Die Maatskappywet brei hierdie geleentheid uit na die instelling van nuwe regsgedinge de novo. Daar is egter formaliteite waaraan die skuldeiser moet voldoen gedurende hierdie grasietydperk. Dit sluit in dat kennisgewing gegee moet word van die voorneme om die regsgeding voort te sit of in te stel aan die kurator, likwidateur of meester, afhangende van die omstandighede. Indien ’n skuldeiser nie gedurende die grasietydperk aan hierdie formaliteite voldoen nie, het die skuldeiser die toestemming van die hof nodig om die regsgeding voort te sit of in te stel, afhangende van die geval. Volgens die regspraak mag ’n kurator of likwidateur ook toestem tot die instel of voortsetting van die regsgeding. In die aantekening word die statutêre meganisme ontleed wat bestaan om kollektief die eise teen insolvente boedels en regspersone in likwidasie te bewys. Hierdie statutêre meganisme maak dit moontlik om baie vinniger en goedkoper die eise van skuldeisers te hanteer as wat die geval sou wees as regsgedinge ingestel of voortgesit word teen die skuldenaar. Die statutêre meganisme maak dit deurlopend moontlik vir skuldeisers om hulle na die howe te wend indien hulle nie daarin slaag om hulle eise af te dwing deur van die statutêre meganisme gebruik te maak nie. Die statutêre afdwingingsmeganisme raak dus geensins ’n skuldeiser se reg tot toegang tot howe nadelig nie. Die skuldeiser word voorts beskerm deur ’n spesiale reëling vervat in die Verjaringswet 68 van 1969 wat die afloop van verjaring uitstel terwyl die skuld die onderwerp is van ’n eis wat volgens die statutêre afdwingingsmeganisme gehanteer word. Met die aantekening doen die outeurs aan die hand dat, volgens internasionale praktyk, skuldeisers verplig moet wees om die statutêre afdwingingsmeganisme te gebruik indien hulle nie binne die grasietydperk aan die voorgeskrewe formaliteite voldoen vir voortsetting of instelling van regsgedinge nie. Alhoewel die Insolvensiewet slegs ’n redelike verskoning van ’n skuldeiser verg om ’n hangende regsgeding voort te sit indien daar nie binne die grasietydperk aan die formaliteite voldoen word nie, verg die Maatskappywet dat die hof alle faktore moet oorweeg om te besluit of die regsgeding ingestel of voortgesit mag word. Dit sluit in die belange van ander skuldeisers en die likwidateur. Die Engelse howe vra pertinent waarom die skuldeiser verkies om van ’n duur en uitgerekte regsgeding gebruik te maak, eerder as om in die kollektiewe belang van die skuldeisers gebruik te maak van die veel goedkoper en vinniger statutêre afdwingingsmeganisme. Daar word aan die hand gedoen dat Suid-Afrikaanse howe daardie benadering behoort te volg. Dit is die hooggeregshof by maatskappye en beslote korporasies, of die landdroshof by beslote korporasies, waar die geregistreerde kantoor van die betrokke regspersoon geleë is wat die nodige toestemming moet gee vir instelling of voortsetting van die regsgeding, ongeag die forum wat die geding moet aanhoor. Dit is so omdat die hof alle skuldeisers en likwidateurs se belange in ag moet neem by hierdie besluit, en nie net die belange van ’n spesifieke skuldeiser en die skuldenaar wat dalk deur ’n spesiale tribunaal (soos ’n arbitrasieliggaam of die arbeidshof) oorweeg moet word nie. Daar word ten slotte aan die hand gedoen dat die grasietydperk vir die instel of voortsetting van regsgedinge nie in ooreenstemming met beste internasionale praktyk is nie. Dit behoort tydens wetswysiging geskrap te word.

Creditors' and Third Parties' Rights In Rem under European Union Regulations and the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law

The purpose of this article is to present the legal position of creditors and third parties secured by rights in rem. The analysis takes into consideration the situation when the bankruptcy of a debtor is declared. The purpose of the article is to present the regulation provided in European Union regulations. According to the European Union regulations, the opening of insolvency proceedings does not affect the rights in rem of creditors or third parties {to assets?} belonging to the debtor which are situated within the territory of another Member State at the time of the opening of insolvency proceedings. Therefore the question arises of whether the scale of protection of a secured creditor or of third parties' is too wide in comparison with other creditors. Moreover it is necessary to compare the European Union provisions with regulations of an international character. The provisions of the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law constitute a point of reference for a comparative analysis of this issue.

ISSUES OF COMPETITION OF THE RULES OF THE CODE OF UKRAINE ON BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURES AND THE LAW OF UKRAINE “ON EXECUTIVE PROCEEDINGS” IN CASES OF INSOLVENCY OF INDIVIDUALS

The Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures is the first insolvency law codified in domestic legislation. The legislative novelty is the so-called consumer bankruptcy provided by the Code, the restoration of solvency through the settlement of problem debts of individuals, individuals – entrepreneurs to banks, microfinance organizations, arrears of taxes, fees and other mandatory payments within the framework of litigation, and in case of impossibility – their repayment (write-off) in the procedure of debt repayment. In addition, the new Code offers special conditions for addressing the issue of “foreign currency borrowers”, which has become relevant for many Ukrainians after the financial crisis of 2008. In general, the procedure for restoring the solvency of individuals is designed to encourage responsible borrowing, start or resume business, increase economic activity and taxable income, aimed at preventing crime and unemployment. Such a procedure is beneficial not only to the debtor, but also to the state. An individual, getting rid of debts, returns to active legal work, and the state returns another economic unit to an active lifestyle, acquires another taxpayer. In addition, the procedure provides creditors of the debtor – an individual with legal grounds for instalment and (or) write-off of part of the debt, as well as improving their own financial performance. However, currently many norms of the Code and other acts of the legislation of Ukraine are inconsistent, which causes conflicts during their practical application. The article considers some aspects that arise in cases of insolvency of individuals, individuals – entrepreneurs during the competition of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures and the Law of Ukraine “On Enforcement Proceedings”, which relate to: suspension of enforcement proceedings during the moratorium on satisfaction of claims creditors; removal of arrests (encumbrances) in the procedure of debt repayment; consequences of the completion of the debt repayment procedure (including the exclusion of a person from the Unified Register of Debtors), identified problematic issues and proposals for their improvement by making appropriate changes to the legislation of Ukraine.

Maximising stakeholder value in personal insolvency (a New Zealand perspective)

<p>Personal insolvency law in New Zealand has had some recent amendments that have been successful in reducing the number of bankruptcies. With the rise in consumer bankruptcies and insolvencies, both in New Zealand and internationally many historic insolvency laws and practices are outdated. Balancing the obligations of debtors with the relief of a proactive insolvency regime while satisfying stakeholders is difficult. If relief is too easily accessed there is a risk of abuse of the system. If relief is too difficult to obtain there will be unnecessary suffering and a potential loss of economic motivation for the insolvent. A new model of personal administration is argued as the best mechanism for maximising stakeholder value. Such a system if entered through a restrictive gateway would cease any concern of abuse.</p>

Maximising stakeholder value in personal insolvency (a New Zealand perspective)

<p>Personal insolvency law in New Zealand has had some recent amendments that have been successful in reducing the number of bankruptcies. With the rise in consumer bankruptcies and insolvencies, both in New Zealand and internationally many historic insolvency laws and practices are outdated. Balancing the obligations of debtors with the relief of a proactive insolvency regime while satisfying stakeholders is difficult. If relief is too easily accessed there is a risk of abuse of the system. If relief is too difficult to obtain there will be unnecessary suffering and a potential loss of economic motivation for the insolvent. A new model of personal administration is argued as the best mechanism for maximising stakeholder value. Such a system if entered through a restrictive gateway would cease any concern of abuse.</p>

What are the Challenges to the Insolvency Law in the 21st Century?

The paper is an essay about possible ways of further development of the insolvency law. If the law is expected to meet global current social needs, then the law will be subject to significant changes, along with the changing world. The digital revolution is also ahead of the insolvency law. It is difficult to anticipate all possible directions of changes; however, there are some areas where remarkable amendments will have to take place. The paper starts with a short description of the development of the insolvency law over ages. It is an introduction to the problem of possible changes in axiological assumptions of the law on insolvency in the 21st Century. The insolvency law is going to be changed due to the technological revolution in the 21st Century. In this respect, there are mentioned the idea of prediction of insolvency and the problem of the debtor’s assets in the virtual world. Finally, the paper deals with the state debt restructuring under the conventions on external state debt.