#

gavel Resolving Insolvency

This topic identifies weaknesses in existing insolvency law and the main procedural and administrative bottlenecks in the insolvency process. The most recent round of data collection for the project was completed in June 2016. See the methodology for more information.

Doing Business Reforms

In 2015/16 Doing Business recorded 24 reforms regarding resolving insolvency, mostly in Sub-Saharan African economies. Substantial regulatory reform efforts have been undertaken by the 17 member states of the Organization for the Harmonization of Business Law in Africa, known by its French acronym OHADA. The Organization adopted a revised “Uniform Act Organizing Collective Proceedings for Wiping Off Debts” in 2015, which introduced a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies and a new conciliation procedure for companies facing financial difficulties, encouraging an agreement between a debtor and main creditors. In addition, the OHADA Uniform Act introduced provisions on cross-border insolvency and was implemented in all the 17 OHADA member states. Similarly, Kenya undertook an impressive effort to adopt a new Insolvency Act, which closely follows the insolvency framework of the United Kingdom as the legal systems in the two countries are very similar. The new law introduced the mechanism of administration – a form of reorganization that allows insolvent companies to continue operating while negotiating a settlement with the creditors. In general, the Act incorporated many of the best international practices.

Another region with active reformers in the area of insolvency is Easte Asia and the Pacific, where Brunei Darussalam, and Thailand and Vanuatu made notable progress. Brunei Darussalam completely overhauled its insolvency framework. Prior to the reform, insolvency provisions for liquidation of corporate entities were included in the Companies Act and some rules were incorporated in the Bankruptcy Act, which applied to individuals. The latest reform created a designated legal act encompassing all provisions related to corporate insolvency and reflecting many of the modern best practices. Companies in Brunei Darussalam now have access to reorganization proceedings in the form of judicial management. Although the insolvency reform in Thailand was not as comprehensive, it nevertheless represented a significant achievement in line with initiatives implemented in other East Asian economies. Thailand expanded the application of its reorganization framework, so that not only large companies, but also small and medium enterprises could take advantage of this mechanism. This step is expected to provide relief to many viable companies, which otherwise would be forced to stop operating.


Resolving insolvency reforms by economy DB2008-DB2017


Positive= Doing Business reform making it easier to do business.Negative= Change making it more difficult to do business.

Albania

DB 2010: Albania improved its insolvency process through a new insolvency law introducing statutory time limits during the insolvency procedure, specifying professional qualifications for insolvency administrators, establishing an agency to regulate the profession of administrators and introducing a simplified insolvency procedure for small businesses

Argentina

DB 2008: Argentina made resolving insolvency more difficult through an amendment to its bankruptcy legislation aimed at providing greater protection to labor claims and freeing commercial courts from labor actions.

Armenia

DB 2012: Armenia amended its bankruptcy law to clarify procedures for appointing insolvency administrators, reduce the processing time for bankruptcy proceedings and regulate asset sales by auction.

DB 2008: Armenia adopted a new bankruptcy law with the aim of improving its reorganization proceedings and also set a time limit for judges to approve a reorganization plan.

Australia

DB 2012: Australia clarified the priority of claims of unsecured creditors over all shareholders’ claims and introduced further regulation of the profession of insolvency practitioners.

Austria

DB 2012: Austria passed a new law that simplifies restructuring proceedings and gives preferential consideration to the interests of the debtors.

Bahamas, The

DB 2014: The Bahamas enhanced its insolvency process by implementing rules for the remuneration of liquidators, allowing voluntary liquidations and outlining clawback provisions for suspect transactions.

Belarus

DB 2014: Belarus improved its insolvency process through a new insolvency law that, among other things, changes the appointment process for insolvency administrators and encourages the sale of assets in insolvency. The law also regulates the liability of shareholders and directors of the insolvent company.

DB 2013: Belarus enhanced its insolvency process by exempting the previously state-owned property of a privatized company from the bankruptcy proceeding, requiring that immovable property not sold in the auction be offered to creditors for purchase and allowing immovable property to be sold without proof of state registration in a bankruptcy auction if there are no funds to pay for the registration.

DB 2011: Belarus amended regulations governing the activities of insolvency administrators and strengthened the protection of creditor rights in bankruptcy.

Belgium

DB 2015: Belgium made resolving insolvency more difficult by establishing additional requirements for commencing reorganization proceedings, including the submission of documents verified by external parties.

DB 2011: Belgium introduced a new law that will promote and facilitate the survival of viable businesses experiencing financial difficulties.

Benin

DB 2017: Benin made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Bolivia

DB 2009: Bolivia made resolving insolvency more difficult by suspending applications for voluntary restructuring—leaving as the only option an unwieldy bankruptcy procedure that typically takes years.

Bosnia and Herzegovina

DB 2009: Bosnia and Herzegovina improved the insolvency process by strengthening professional requirements for bankruptcy trustees.

Botswana

DB 2008: Botswana made resolving insolvency more difficult through an amendment to its Employment Act increasing the priority ranking of employee benefits to preferred status. In addition, Botswana amended its Insolvency Act to criminalize false statements by an insolvent company that may affect a prospective buyer’s decision whether to purchase the company as a going concern.

Brunei Darussalam

DB 2017: Brunei Darussalam made resolving insolvency easier by adopting a new insolvency law that introduced a reorganization procedure and facilitated continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency proceedings. Brunei Darussalam also introduced regulations for insolvency practitioners.

Bulgaria

DB 2014: Bulgaria made resolving insolvency easier by expanding the basis for commencement of insolvency proceedings and making it easier to void suspect transactions.

DB 2012: Bulgaria amended its commerce act to extend further rights to secured creditors and increase the transparency of insolvency proceedings.

DB 2009: Bulgaria adopted a new civil procedure code and a new law for the commercial registry, introducing changes expected to reduce delays and allow for faster resolution of bankruptcy. Among other things, the commercial registry law requires that major decisions and rulings of the bankruptcy court be posted on the commercial registry’s website.

Burkina Faso

DB 2017: Burkina Faso made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Burundi

DB 2012: Burundi amended its commercial code to establish foreclosure procedures.

Cabo Verde

DB 2012: Cape Verde introduced qualification requirements for insolvency administrators and a shorter time frame for liquidation proceedings.

Cambodia

DB 2009: Cambodia adopted its first law regulating the bankruptcy of private enterprises (the 2007 Bankruptcy Law), which introduced a reorganization procedure to restructure insolvent companies.

Cameroon

DB 2017: Cameroon made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Central African Republic

DB 2017: The Central African Republic made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Chad

DB 2017: Chad made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Chile

DB 2016: Chile made resolving insolvency easier by clarifying and simplifying provisions on liquidation and reorganization, introducing provisions to facilitate the continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency, establishing a public office responsible for the general administration of insolvency proceedings and creating specialized insolvency courts.

China

DB 2008: China enhanced its insolvency process through a new enterprise bankruptcy law introducing reorganization procedures, allowing for the formation of creditors’ committees, granting rights to secured creditors and establishing a role for professional bankruptcy administrators.

Colombia

DB 2012: Colombia amended regulations governing insolvency proceedings to simplify the proceedings and reduce their time and cost

DB 2010: Colombia enhanced its insolvency process through several decrees regulating the profession of insolvency administrators.

DB 2009: Colombia improved its insolvency process by introducing 2 new proceedings—a reorganization procedure to restructure insolvent companies and a mandatory liquidation procedure—and tightening the time limits for negotiating reorganization agreements.

Comoros

DB 2017: The Comoros made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Congo, Dem Rep

DB 2017: The Democratic Republic of Congo made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

DB 2014: The Democratic Republic of Congo made resolving insolvency easier by adopting the OHADA Uniform Act Organizing Collective Proceedings for Wiping Off Debts. The law allows an insolvent debtor to file for preventive settlement, legal redress or liquidation and sets out clear rules on the steps and procedures for each of the options available.

Congo, Rep

DB 2017: The Republic of Congo made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Cote d’Ivoire

DB 2017: Côte d’Ivoire made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Croatia

DB 2014: Croatia made resolving insolvency easier by introducing an expedited out-of-court restructuring procedure.

DB 2008: Croatia made resolving insolvency easier through amendments to its insolvency act regulating the profession of bankruptcy administrators.

Cyprus

DB 2016: Cyprus made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a reorganization procedure as well as provisions to facilitate the continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency proceedings and allow creditors greater participation in important decisions during the proceedings.

Czech Republic

DB 2011: The Czech Republic made it easier to deal with insolvency by introducing further legal amendments to restrict setoffs in insolvency cases and suspending for some insolvent debtors the obligation to file for bankruptcy.

DB 2009: The Czech Republic strengthened its insolvency process through a new insolvency law introducing reorganization as the preferred method for resolving insolvency, mandating stricter deadlines, establishing an electronic insolvency register and setting new qualification standards for trustees.

Denmark

DB 2012: Denmark introduced new rules on company reorganization, which led to the elimination of the suspension-of-payments regime.

DB 2008: Denmark made resolving insolvency easier through legislation transferring some powers in bankruptcy proceedings from trustees to judges and granting more rights to creditors.

Djibouti

DB 2014: Djibouti made resolving insolvency easier through its new commercial code, which allows an insolvent debtor to file for preventive settlement, legal redress or liquidation and sets out clear rules on the steps and procedures for each of the alternatives available.

Equatorial Guinea

DB 2017: Equatorial Guinea made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Estonia

DB 2011: Amendments to Estonia’s recent insolvency law increased the chances that viable businesses will survive insolvency by improving procedures and changing the qualification requirements for insolvency administrators.

DB 2010: Estonia enhanced its insolvency process by establishing a new reorganization procedure to enable financially distressed companies to restructure their debt and apply other means to restore financial health and profitability.

Finland

DB 2009: Finland enhanced its insolvency process through amendments to the Restructuring of Enterprises Act that accelerate hearings and increase the flexibility of proceedings, making it easier for companies to enter reorganization.

France

DB 2012: France passed a law that enables debtors to implement a restructuring plan with financial creditors only, without affecting trade creditors.

DB 2010: France enhanced its insolvency process by encouraging preinsolvency workouts and eliminating the requirement that a public auctioneer provide the estimation of the debtor’s assets.

Gabon

DB 2017: Gabon made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Georgia

DB 2013: Georgia expedited the process of resolving insolvency by establishing or tightening time limits for all insolvency-related procedures, including auctions.

DB 2011: Georgia improved insolvency proceedings by streamlining the regulation of auction sales.

DB 2008: Georgia enhanced its insolvency process through a new insolvency law introducing both reorganization and liquidation proceedings, tightening time limits for the completion of each stage of the bankruptcy process and instituting provisions for regulating the appointment of bankruptcy trustees.

Germany

DB 2013: Germany strengthened its insolvency process by adopting a new insolvency law that facilitates in-court restructurings of distressed companies and increases participation by creditors.

DB 2010: Germany enhanced its insolvency process through the Act on the Implementation of Measures to Stabilize the Financial Market (Finanzmarktstabilisierungsgesetz), which removed the requirement for potentially viable companies to file for immediate insolvency in cases of overindebtedness.

DB 2009: Germany amended its insolvency code to allow the court to suspend enforcement actions against assets essential to the continuation of the debtor’s business, making it easier to maintain the business as a going concern.

Greece

DB 2013: Greece enhanced its insolvency process by abolishing the conciliation procedure and introducing a new rehabilitation proceeding.

DB 2009: Greece improved its insolvency process through a new bankruptcy law that is aimed at allowing more companies to continue as a going concern—by encouraging the reorganization of financially distressed companies, preserving business assets, ensuring equal treatment of creditors and preventing piecemeal sale.

Guinea

DB 2017: Guinea made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Guinea-Bissau

DB 2017: Guinea-Bissau made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Hong Kong SAR, China

DB 2009: Hong Kong SAR, China, improved its insolvency process by granting more power to trustees, a change expected to make the liquidation procedure more efficient.

Hungary

DB 2011: Amendments to Hungary’s bankruptcy law encourage insolvent companies to consider reaching agreements with creditors out of court so as to avoid bankruptcy.

DB 2008: Hungary enhanced its insolvency process through an amendment to its bankruptcy legislation granting secured creditors priority over their pledged security.

India

DB 2010: India made resolving insolvency easier by increasing the effectiveness of processes and thereby reducing the time required.

Israel

DB 2014: Israel made resolving insolvency easier through an amendment to its company law allowing the assumption or rejection of executory contracts, granting maximum priority to postcommencement credit, extending the maximum period of moratorium during restructuring proceedings and allowing the sale of secured assets when necessary to ensure a successful restructuring.

DB 2012: Israel amended its courts law to establish specialized courts for dealing with economic matters.

Italy

DB 2014: Italy made resolving insolvency easier through an amendment to its bankruptcy code that introduces a stay period for enforcement actions while the debtor is preparing a restructuring plan, makes it easier to convert from one type of restructuring proceeding to another, facilitates continued operation by the debtor during restructuring and imposes stricter requirements on auditors evaluating a restructuring plan.

DB 2012: Italy introduced debt restructuring and reorganization procedures as alternatives to bankruptcy proceedings and extended further rights to secured creditors during insolvency proceedings.

DB 2008: Italy enhanced its insolvency process through new legislation that gives trustees greater discretion in liquidating assets and grants creditors the right to propose arrangements for other creditors to take over distressed assets, which may shorten the liquidation procedure.

Jamaica

DB 2016: Jamaica made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a reorganization procedure; introducing provisions to facilitate the continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency proceedings and allow creditors greater participation in important decisions during the proceedings; and establishing a public office responsible for the general administration of insolvency proceedings.

Japan

DB 2011: Japan made it easier to deal with insolvency by establishing a new entity, the Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corporation, to support the revitalization of companies suffering from excessive debt but professionally managed.

Kazakhstan

DB 2017: Kazakhstan made resolving insolvency easier by changing voting procedures for reorganization plans and providing protections to creditors who vote against such plans. Additionally, creditors were granted greater access to information about the debtor during insolvency proceedings and allowed to challenge decisions affecting their rights.

DB 2016: Kazakhstan made resolving insolvency easier by allowing creditors to initiate reorganization proceedings and encouraging sales of assets as a going concern. Kazakhstan also improved its bankruptcy regime, by explicitly authorizing post-commencement finance and granting it priority over existing unsecured claims.

DB 2015: Kazakhstan made resolving insolvency easier by clarifying and simplifying provisions on liquidation and reorganization, introducing the concept of creditors’ meetings, expanding the rights of creditors during insolvency proceedings, authorizing payment in kind to secured creditors and clarifying the process for submitting creditors’ claims.

DB 2013: Kazakhstan strengthened its insolvency process by introducing an accelerated rehabilitation proceeding, extending the period for rehabilitation, expanding the powers of and improving qualification requirements for insolvency administrators, changing requirements for bankruptcy filings, extending the rights of creditors, changing regulations related to the continuation of operations, introducing a time limit for adopting a rehabilitation plan and adding court supervision requirements.

Kenya

DB 2017: Kenya made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a reorganization procedure, facilitating continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency proceedings and by introducing regulations for insolvency practitioners.

Korea, Rep

DB 2013: Korea expedited the insolvency process by implementing a fast track for company rehabilitation.

DB 2011: Korea made it easier to deal with insolvency by introducing postfiling financing, granting superpriority to the repayment of loans given to companies undergoing reorganization.

Kuwait

DB 2010: Kuwait enhanced its insolvency process by introducing a new legal procedure that enables financially distressed companies on the verge of insolvency to restructure.

Kyrgyz Republic

DB 2011: The Kyrgyz Republic streamlined insolvency proceedings and updated requirements for administrators, but new formalities added to prevent abuse of proceedings made closing a business more difficult.

Latvia

DB 2012: Latvia adopted a new insolvency law that streamlines and expedites the insolvency process and introduces a reorganization option for companies.

DB 2011: Latvia introduced a mechanism for out-of-court settlement of insolvencies to alleviate pressure on courts and tightened some procedural deadlines.

DB 2009: Latvia improved its insolvency system through a new insolvency law that for the first time allows financially distressed companies to continue operating by pursuing reorganization, and through stronger qualification standards for bankruptcy administrators.

Lithuania

DB 2013: Lithuania made resolving insolvency easier by establishing which cases against the company’s property shall be taken to the bankruptcy court, tightening the time frame for decisions on appeals, abolishing the court’s obligation to individually notify creditors and other stakeholders about restructuring proceedings and setting new time limits for creditors to file claims.

DB 2012: Lithuania amended its reorganization law to simplify and shorten reorganization proceedings, grant priority to secured creditors and introduce professional requirements for insolvency administrators.

DB 2011: Lithuania introduced regulations relating to insolvency administrators that set out clear rules of liability for violations of law.

DB 2010: Lithuania made resolving insolvency easier through amendments to the Enterprise Bankruptcy Law.

Macedonia, FYR

DB 2017: FYR Macedonia made resolving insolvency easier by changing voting procedures for the reorganization plans and allowing creditors greater participation in insolvency proceedings.

DB 2015: The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia made resolving insolvency easier by establishing a framework for electronic auctions of debtors’ assets, streamlining and tightening the time frames for insolvency proceedings and the appeals process and establishing a framework for out-of-court restructurings.

DB 2012: FYR Macedonia increased the transparency of bankruptcy proceedings through amendments to its company and bankruptcy laws.

Malawi

DB 2012: Malawi adopted new rules providing clear procedural requirements and time frames for winding up a company.

DB 2010: Malawi enhanced its insolvency process through a new law limiting the liquidator’s fees.

Malaysia

DB 2012: Malaysia established dedicated commercial courts to handle foreclosure proceedings.

Mali

DB 2017: Mali made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Mauritius

DB 2014: Mauritius made resolving insolvency easier by introducing guidelines for out-of-court restructuring and standardizing the process of registration, suspension and removal of insolvency practitioners.

DB 2010: Mauritius enhanced its insolvency system through a new law introducing a rehabilitation procedure for companies as an alternative to winding up, defining the rights and obligations of creditors and debtors and setting out sanctions for those who abuse the system.

DB 2008: Mauritius enhanced its insolvency process through legislation making the process of sale of immovable property after default on a credit agreement more efficient and less susceptible to abuse by creditors.

Mexico

DB 2015: Mexico made resolving insolvency easier by clarifying several rules, shortening the time extensions allowed during reorganization, facilitating the electronic submission of documents and improving the legal rights of creditors and other parties involved in bankruptcy procedures. This reform applies to both Mexico City and Monterrey.

DB 2009: Mexico made reorganization more accessible by amending its bankruptcy law to allow debtors and creditors to enter into a reorganization agreement at any stage of the insolvency procedure.

Moldova

DB 2016: Moldova improved its insolvency system by introducing a licensing system for insolvency administrators, by increasing qualification requirements to include a professional exam as well as training and by establishing supervisory bodies to regulate the profession of insolvency administrators.

DB 2014: Moldova made resolving insolvency easier by introducing new restructuring mechanisms, reducing opportunities for appeals, adding moratorium provisions and establishing strict statutory periods for several stages of the insolvency proceeding.

DB 2013: Moldova strengthened its insolvency process by extending the duration of the reorganization proceeding and refining the qualification requirements for insolvency administrators.

DB 2012: Moldova amended its insolvency law to grant priority to secured creditors.

Montenegro

DB 2012: Montenegro passed a new bankruptcy law that introduces reorganization and liquidation proceedings, introduces time limits for these proceedings and provides for the possibility of recovery of secured creditors’ claims and settlement before completion of the entire bankruptcy procedure.

Mozambique

DB 2015: Mozambique made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a court-supervised reorganization procedure and a mechanism for prepackaged reorganizations, by clarifying rules on the appointment and qualifications of insolvency administrators and by strengthening creditors’ rights.

Namibia

DB 2012: Namibia adopted a new company law that established clear procedures for liquidation.

New Zealand

DB 2009: New Zealand introduced a reorganization procedure with the aim of providing an alternative to liquidation and receivership and maximizing a company’s chances of continuing as a going concern.

Niger

DB 2017: Niger made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Philippines

DB 2012: The Philippines adopted a new insolvency law that provides a legal framework for liquidation and reorganization of financially distressed companies.

DB 2010: The Philippines enhanced its insolvency process by promoting reorganization procedures through the introduction of prepackaged reorganizations and by establishing qualification requirements for receivers.

Poland

DB 2017: Poland made resolving insolvency easier by introducing new restructuring mechanisms, changing voting procedures for restructuring plans and allowing creditors greater participation in insolvency proceedings. It also established a central restructuring and bankruptcy register and released guidelines for the remuneration of insolvency representatives.

DB 2013: Poland strengthened its insolvency process by updating guidelines on the information and documents that need to be included in the bankruptcy petition and by granting secured creditors the right to take over claims encumbered with financial pledges in case of liquidation.

DB 2012: Poland amended its bankruptcy and reorganization law to simplify court procedures and extend more rights to secured creditors.

DB 2010: Poland enhanced its insolvency process through an amendment to its bankruptcy law introducing the option of a prebankruptcy reorganization procedure for financially distressed companies.

DB 2009: Poland improved its insolvency process by tightening professional requirements for administrators and introducing lower limits on trustees’ pay.

Portugal

DB 2013: Portugal made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new insolvency law that expedites liquidation procedures and creates fast-track mechanisms both in and out of court.

DB 2009: Portugal made resolving insolvency easier by eliminating the formality of publishing insolvency notices in newspapers, introducing a fast-track procedure for debtors with less than €5,000 in assets, implementing new procedures to accelerate payments to insolvency administrators and limiting appeals.

DB 2008: Portugal made resolving insolvency easier through legislation creating fast-track procedures for the voluntary liquidation of commercial enterprises.

Romania

DB 2016: Romania improved its insolvency system by introducing time limits for the observation period (during which a reorganization plan must be confirmed or a declaration of bankruptcy made) and for the implementation of the reorganization plan; by introducing additional minimum voting requirements for the approval of the reorganization plan; and by clarifying rules on voidable transactions and on payment priority for claims of post-commencement creditors.

DB 2012: Romania amended its insolvency law to shorten the duration of insolvency proceedings.

DB 2011: Substantial amendments to Romania’s bankruptcy laws—introducing, among other things, a procedure for out-of-court workouts—made dealing with insolvency easier.

DB 2010: Romania made resolving insolvency more difficult by requiring that a percentage of recovered amounts be transferred to a fund for reimbursing the expenses of insolvency administrators in cases where the debtor has no assets.

Russian Federation

DB 2011: Russia introduced a series of legislative measures in 2009 to improve creditor rights and the insolvency system.

DB 2010: Russia enhanced its insolvency process by introducing several changes to its insolvency law to speed up the liquidation procedure and strengthen the legal status of secured creditors.

Rwanda

DB 2016: Rwanda improved its insolvency system by introducing provisions on voidable transactions and the approval of reorganization plans and by establishing additional safeguards for creditors in reorganization proceedings.

DB 2014: Rwanda made resolving insolvency easier through a new law clarifying the standards for beginning insolvency proceedings; preventing the separation of the debtor’s assets during reorganization proceedings; setting clear time limits for the submission of a reorganization plan; and implementing an automatic stay of creditors’ enforcement actions.

DB 2010: Rwanda improved its insolvency process through a new law aimed at streamlining reorganization procedures.

Samoa

DB 2010: Samoa made resolving insolvency easier through a new company act and a law introducing receivership.

Saudi Arabia

DB 2011: Saudi Arabia speeded up the insolvency process by providing earlier access to amicable settlements and putting time limits on the settlements to encourage creditors to participate.

DB 2009: Saudi Arabia introduced strict deadlines for bankruptcy procedures, with the result that auctions of debtors’ assets now take place more quickly than before.

Senegal

DB 2017: Senegal made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Serbia

DB 2013: Serbia strengthened its insolvency process by introducing private bailiffs, reducing the starting prices for the sale of assets, prohibiting appeals, expediting service of process and adopting an electronic registry for injunctions to make public all prohibitions on the disposal or pledge of movable or immovable property.

DB 2012: Serbia adopted legislation introducing professional requirements for insolvency administrators and regulating their compensation.

DB 2011: Serbia passed a new bankruptcy law that introduced out-of-court workouts and a unified reorganization procedure.

Seychelles

DB 2015: The Seychelles made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a reorganization procedure, provisions on the avoidance of undervalued transactions and the possibility to request post-commencement financing during the reorganization.

Sierra Leone

DB 2012: Sierra Leone established a fast-track commercial court in an effort to expedite commercial cases, including insolvency proceedings.

DB 2010: Sierra Leone improved its insolvency process through a new company act that encourages financially distressed companies to first try to reorganize rather than going straight into liquidation.

Slovak Republic

DB 2013: The Slovak Republic improved its insolvency process by redefining the roles and powers of creditors and trustees, strengthening the rights of secured creditors and redefining rules for the conversion of restructuring into a bankruptcy proceeding.

Slovenia

DB 2015: Slovenia made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a simplified reorganization procedure for small companies and a preventive restructuring procedure for medium-size and large ones, by allowing creditors greater participation in the management of the debtor and by establishing provisions for an increase in share capital through debt-equity swaps.

DB 2013: Slovenia strengthened its insolvency process by requiring that the debtor offer creditors payment of at least 50% of the claims within 4 years; giving greater power to the creditors’ committee in a bankruptcy proceeding; prohibiting insolvency administrators from allowing relatives to render services associated with the bankruptcy proceeding; and establishing fines for members of management that violate certain obligations or prohibitions.

DB 2012: Slovenia simplified and streamlined the insolvency process and strengthened professional requirements for insolvency administrators.

Solomon Islands

DB 2012: The Solomon Islands adopted a new law that simplified insolvency proceedings.

South Africa

DB 2012: South Africa introduced a new reorganization process to facilitate the rehabilitation of financially distressed companies.

Spain

DB 2015: Spain made resolving insolvency easier by introducing new rules for out-of-court restructuring, introducing provisions applicable to prepackaged reorganizations and making insolvency proceedings more public.

DB 2013: Spain strengthened its insolvency process by making workouts easier, offering more protections for refinancing agreements, allowing conversion from reorganization into liquidation at any time, allowing reliefs of the stay under certain circumstances and permitting the judge to determine whether an asset of the insolvent company is necessary for its continued operation.

DB 2011: Spain amended its regulations governing insolvency proceedings with the aim of reducing the cost and time. The new regulations also introduced out-of-court workouts.

St Kitts and Nevis

DB 2015: St. Kitts and Nevis made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a rehabilitation procedure; introducing provisions to facilitate the continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency proceedings and allow creditors greater participation in important decisions during the proceedings; and establishing a public office responsible for the general administration of insolvency cases.

St Vincent and the Grenadines

DB 2016: St. Vincent and the Grenadines made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a rehabilitation procedure; introducing provisions to facilitate the continuation of the debtor’s business during insolvency proceedings and allow creditors greater participation in important decisions during the proceedings; and establishing a public office responsible for the general administration of insolvency cases.

DB 2009: St. Vincent and the Grenadines enacted a bankruptcy law, its first set of rules regulating the bankruptcy of private enterprises since its independence.

Switzerland

DB 2015: Switzerland made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a moratorium period while the debtor is preparing a composition (reorganization) agreement, allowing creditors greater participation in the composition (reorganization) procedure and clarifying claw-back provisions applicable to voidable transactions.

DB 2012: Switzerland introduced a unified civil procedure code and made a number of changes to its federal bankruptcy law.

Tajikistan

DB 2010: Tajikistan improved its insolvency process by amending its insolvency law to reduce the duration and cost of proceedings.

Tanzania

DB 2014: Tanzania made resolving insolvency easier through new rules clearly specifying the professional requirements and remuneration for insolvency practitioners, promoting reorganization proceedings and streamlining insolvency proceedings.

Thailand

DB 2017: Thailand made resolving insolvency easier by introducing new restructuring for small and medium-size companies and by streamlining provisions related to company liquidation.

Togo

DB 2017: Togo made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a new conciliation procedure for companies in financial difficulties and a simplified preventive settlement procedure for small companies.

Trinidad and Tobago

DB 2015: Trinidad and Tobago made resolving insolvency easier by introducing a formal mechanism for rehabilitation, establishing a public office responsible for the general administration of insolvency proceedings and clarifying the rules on appointment of trustees.

Uganda

DB 2015: Uganda made resolving insolvency easier by consolidating all provisions related to corporate insolvency in one law, establishing provisions on the administration of companies (reorganization), clarifying standards on the professional qualifications of insolvency practitioners and introducing provisions allowing the avoidance of undervalued transactions.

DB 2013: Uganda strengthened its insolvency process by clarifying rules on the creation of mortgages, establishing the duties of mortgagors and mortgagees, defining priority rules, providing remedies for mortgagors and mortgagees and establishing the powers of receivers.

Ukraine

DB 2014: Ukraine made resolving insolvency easier by strengthening the rights of secured creditors, introducing new rehabilitation procedures and mechanisms, making it easier to invalidate suspect transactions and shortening the statutory periods for several steps of the insolvency process.

DB 2012: Ukraine amended its legislation on enforcement, introducing more guarantees for secured creditors.

United Kingdom

DB 2011: Amendments to the United Kingdom’s insolvency rules streamline bankruptcy procedures, favor the sale of the firm as a whole and improve the calculation of administrators’ fees.

Uruguay

DB 2010: Uruguay improved its insolvency process through a new insolvency law aimed at keeping a larger number of financially distressed companies operating as a going concern.

Uzbekistan

DB 2013: Uzbekistan strengthened its insolvency process by introducing new time limits for insolvency proceedings and new time limits and procedures for the second auction and by making it possible for businesses to continue operating throughout the liquidation proceeding.

DB 2008: Uzbekistan made resolving insolvency easier by adopting legislation on the voluntary liquidation of private companies.

Vanuatu

DB 2017: Vanuatu made resolving insolvency easier by strengthening and modernizing its legal framework in relation to liquidation and receivership proceedings.

Vietnam

DB 2016: Vietnam made resolving insolvency easier by clarifying and simplifying provisions on liquidation and reorganization, modifying the standard for commencement of insolvency proceedings, changing provisions on voidable transactions, regulating the profession of insolvency trustees and establishing the rules for enterprise asset managers.

Zambia

DB 2013: Zambia strengthened its insolvency process by introducing further qualification requirements for receivers and liquidators and by establishing specific duties and remuneration rules for them.