Search

Straipsnyje nagrinėjamas nemokių įmonių gaivinimo formalių procedūrų reglamentavimas Lietuvoje, Didžiojoje Britanijoje, Jungtinėse Amerikos Valstijose ir Vokietijoje. Svarstoma, ar nemokioms įmonėms turėtų būti suteikiamas antras šansas, ar valstybių nacionaliniuose teisės aktuose turėtų būti įtvirtintos formalios nemokių įmonių gaivinimo procedūros, kuriomis būtų galima pasinaudoti kaip priverstinio likvidavimo alternatyva. Straipsnyje remiamasi atitinkamais nagrinėjamų valstybių teisės aktais bei Lietuvos ir užsienio autorių mokslo darbais. The origin of insolvency regulation may be traced back to the times of the Ancient Rome. The Law of the Twelve Tables granted creditors the right to take certain actions against debtors who were unable to fulfil their obligations. Thus, the origin of insolvency regulation goes back to the antiquity but more comprehensive discussion concerning the rescue of insolvent companies began only in the last decades. The main purpose of modern insolvency regulation should not be entirely related, as it was initially, to the distribution of the insolvent company’s assets and liquidation of such company. In most cases a compulsory liquidation is the inevitable destiny of insolvent companies; nevertheless, not all insolvent companies should be liquidated. The insolvency regulation should certainly establish rescue procedures that would allow viable insolvent companies to overcome the crisis period and to restore their solvency. The rescue of insolvent companies should be perceived as one of the solutions to the problem of insolvency which, under certain circumstances, is more advantageous than other solutions to the problem of insolvency. The insolvency regulation that is in effect in United Kingdom, the United States of America and Germany should be regarded as innovative and acknowledging the realities of the present because it establishes the certain formal rescue procedures of insolvent companies. However, as far as regulation that is in effect in Lithuania is concerned, there is room for improvement. It could be argued that Lithuania provides for only a theoretical but not a practical possibility to rescue a company experiencing temporary difficulties if it is insolvent. In all cases, insolvency per se does not allow insolvent companies to seek the protection provided by the Law on Restructuring, whereas in most cases the conclusion of a composition established in the Bankruptcy law is impossible to reach in practice.

The Serbian insurance sector remains small and underdeveloped. Over the last three years, the market experienced very little growth in real terms mainly due to weak economic growth, premium payment difficulties in the industrial sector, which forced many corporate policyholders to cancel their insurance, and fierce price competition among the growing number of players. With consumption of 76 Pounds and 10 Pounds per capita for non-life and life insurance, respectively, Serbia lags behind most of its neighbors in Southeastern and Central Europe. In 2009 the industry accounted for only 4.6 percent of total assets and 5.6 percent of total capital in the Serbian financial sector. Although in 2008 the total gross premium written (GPW) for both life and non-life was SRD 52.2 billion (dinars), representing a 5.3 percent annual inflation-adjusted increase over the previous year, in 2009 the sector is likely to experience an 8 percent contraction due to the impact of the economic crisis.