This article completes what we wrote last week.
If the debtor has carried out the LPP plan, he will file an application in court together with the supervisor’s opinion on completion of the plan and termination of the proceedings. Once the plan is completed and LPP terminated, the restrictions placed on the debtor and its creditors are lifted and the debtor carries on business as before LPP. If, however, the debtor breaches the Insolvency Act or any of the restrictions on conduct, gives false information or fails to carry out the plan for more than 30 days without amending it, LPP will be terminated on the basis of the debtor’s or creditors’ application, and the debtor’s insolvency proceedings will be automatically announced.
The out-of-court workout is a type of LPP that in fact only has a different initial stage, so the out-of-court workout would fit a debtor that has a good chance of reaching an agreement with the majority creditors if there is no risk of the creditors taking individual debt recovery actions against the debtor that would jeopardise the drafting, approval and implementation of the LPP plan. Thus, an out-of-court workout plan is drawn up and approved by the creditors and sees the selection of a supervisor candidate for an indefinite period before going to court. If negotiations have won the majority creditors’ approval for the out-of-court workout plan and the debtor has received the potential supervisor’s opinion on it, the debtor will only then ask the court to start an LPP case, with attached evidence that the plan has also been sent to the minority creditors who never approved it.
If the court announces implementation of an out-of-court workout, that is the moment the debtor obtains protection from the creditors, with all the consequences of initiating and implementing an LPP case prescribed by sections 37 and 45 of the Insolvency Act (protection from creditors, restrictions on debtor conduct, and obligations during LPP implementation). The rest of the proceedings will take place according to the LPP rules described earlier.
Below are three essential differences between LPP and an out-of-court workout:
Before a company runs into financial difficulties, it should regularly monitor its operations to notice any internal and external factors capable of affecting its financial health, and prompt action must be taken if any problems are spotted. If those problems cannot be solved by simply agreeing with the creditors to extend the time limit for paying the debt, during which the debtor might restore his financial health, then it is time to draw up a restructuring plan, which can later serve as a basis for the LPP or out-of-court workout plan. The plan has to be drawn up to high standards if it is to have a reasonable chance of preventing the debtor’s insolvency and ensuring the company’s viability. Otherwise, drawing up the plan is likely to be a waste of time and money that merely delays the inevitable bankruptcy and may harm the interests of the creditors at large. And procrastinating certainly does not help the debtor avoid responsibility. Once it has been decided to use LPP or out-of-court workout, it is important to observe all the restrictions on conduct because should the LPP or out-of-court workout fail, the debtor’s transactions and management decisions will be later examined as part of insolvency proceedings by the administrator, who may use various legal remedies to hold the debtor liable for any dealings or acting late (procrastination and reduction to insolvency). Of course, when it comes to implementing the LPP or out-of-court workout, it is important to carry out the authorised plan, which means regularly monitoring cash flows and income to avoid making the same mistakes that were made before the problems arose. The debtor is liable to notify the supervisor of any disruption so that the right decisions can be made jointly. It is clear that a company whose solvency can be restored is far more advantageous for the creditors, so it is in the interests of any party concerned that problems are notified and addressed early.
The creditors’ role has equal importance and is sometimes even more important than the debtor’s role because it is up to the creditors to move the process towards achieving the goal of LPP or out-of-court workout or to seek its termination if there is a good reason for that. The Insolvency Act imposes various prohibitions on creditors to prevent any unreasonable and harmful behaviour, so in fact the creditors’ most important task is to refrain from unreasonable and individual steps that make the debtor’s position even worse. At the same time, a creditor’s task is to monitor the debtor’s activities by all possible means, including through the supervisor, and to take an active part in the process from the very outset in order to not miss out on anything, including any infringements of their rights by the debtor, and to select a supervisor according to the company’s size and type. In view of this, the creditors’ role is particularly important.
The supervisor acts in the creditors’ interests as an external mechanism for controlling the debtor, with the statutory right to monitor and analyse the debtor’s actions. The supervisor’s main function in formal debt restructuring procedures is, first of all, to provide an opinion on the LPP or out-of-court workout plan, focusing on whether the plan has a reasonable chance of preventing the debtor’s insolvency and ensuring the company’s viability, because early identification of problems minimises losses suffered by the creditors in whose interests the supervisor is acting. If the opinion is favourable and the court authorises implementation of the LPP or out-of-court workout plan, the crucial task is to monitor the debtor’s activities closely and regularly for compliance with the Insolvency Act and the LPP or out-of-court workout plan, as well as keeping the creditors informed of key issues. It is important to note that the supervisor is not authorised to take part in drawing up the LPP or out-of-court workout plan or its amendments, yet he is not prohibited from monitoring the debtor while the plan is being drawn up – that would even be strongly recommended in the creditors’ interests and as part of the supervisory function. Thus, creditors should select as supervisor someone that objectively has competence and resources to ensure good supervision, considering the debtor’s size, business activities, cross-border elements etc.
If you have any questions please be in touch with our experts.
If you have any comments on this article please email them to lv_mindlink@pwc.com
Ask questionThe Covid-19 pandemic has thrown the global economy into recession. However, the warning issued by the industry experts and backed by the authors of a World Bank study that the economy will experience a rapid increase in the number of insolvency proceedings and legal protection proceedings (LPP) at the end of Covid-19, has not come true as yet. This is because the financial difficulties brought on by the pandemic were countered with an unprecedented government intervention in the market and a huge package of financial aid, including working capital grants and idleness benefits. The economic downturn is now being aggravated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, as the consequences of the war are pushing up energy prices and fuelling price rises in general, inevitably leading to debt crises. Latvia seems likely to face an inevitable wave of insolvencies and LPP, so this article aims to introduce companies to Latvian LPP and out-of-court workouts in simple terms in order to highlight the characteristics of these debt restructuring tools, as well as the role of the debtor, the creditors and the supervisor within these proceedings.
The Labour Act does not prohibit employers from hiring part-time workers under the cumulative scheme. This issue has been settled by case law, yet we can still see some part-timers employed on a cumulative basis. This article explores the potential consequences of such action.
On 15 March 2022 proposals for amending the Employment Act were endorsed by the Cabinet of Ministers and submitted to Parliament for approval. The amendments are being made in order to transpose two EU directives that Latvia must pass by August 2022 and to implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling No. 2019-33-01 of 12 November 2020, which recognises that section 155(1) of the Employment Act, giving a childbirth leave entitlement to the father, is not consistent with the first sentence of the Constitution’s section 110 insofar as it offers no protection or support for a female partner of the child’s mother due to the birth of the child. This article explores key changes and how they affect workers and employers.
We use cookies to make our site work well for you and so we can continually improve it. The cookies that keep the site functioning are always on. We use analytics and marketing cookies to help us understand what content is of most interest and to personalise your user experience.
It’s your choice to accept these or not. You can either click the 'I accept all’ button below or use the switches to choose and save your choices.
For detailed information on how we use cookies and other tracking technologies, please visit our cookies information page.
These cookies are necessary for the website to operate. Our website cannot function without these cookies and they can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
These cookies allow us to measure and report on website activity by tracking page visits, visitor locations and how visitors move around the site. The information collected does not directly identify visitors. We drop these cookies and use Adobe to help us analyse the data.
These cookies help us provide you with personalised and relevant services or advertising, and track the effectiveness of our digital marketing activities.