The order of property realisation in bankruptcy (insolvency) procedure under the law of Ukraine and Germany

As already was mentioned, § 161 of the Statute provides for the possibility of a temporary prohibition of the transaction. It stipulates the obligation of the insolvency trustee to notify the debtor of the decisions of creditors' self-government bodies relating to transactions falling under § 160. If the participants in the creditors' assembly do not give their consent, the court may, at the request of the debtor or the qualified majority of creditors provided for in paragraph 3, part 1 of § 75, temporarily prohibit the insolvency trustee from making transactions and convene creditors' assembly to resolve the issue. After all, the provisions of this rule of law indicate that the procedure for a transaction by an insolvency trustee is much simpler than postponing its commission. Therefore, by its essence, this norm is mostly declarative and almost does not create obstacles.

§ 162 of the Statute is devoted to the sale of the enterprise to particularly interested persons. Thus, for this transaction is obligatory the consent of the assembly of creditors, if the buyer of the enterprise or a person who owns 1/5 of the capital of the enterprise, are:

1) an interested person within the meaning of § 138, including a person who is an enterprise and has a share in the buyer's capital or is dependent on the buyer or a third party acting at the expense of the buyer or at the expense of the enterprise dependent on the buyer;

2) a non-competitive creditor or a competitive creditor with claims of not lower rank, whose rights to separate satisfaction, according to the court, are at least 1/5 of the sum of all claims with separate satisfaction and the number of claims of competitive creditors with claims of not lower level.

§ 163 is devoted to the sale of the debtor's enterprise at a lower price. This regulation allows the debtor or a qualified majority of creditors (paragraph 3, part 1, § 75) to apply to the court to state that there is another buyer and sale to him would be more profitable. In this case, the court may require the trustee to obtain the consent of the creditors' assembly.

Section 3 of the Statute is devoted to the sale of the property to which there is a right to separate satisfaction. Thus, § 165 of the Statute provides for the right of the insolvency trustee to hold an auction for the sale of real estate, in respect of which there is a right to separate satisfaction. Indeed, § 166 of the Statute is devoted to the sale of movable property. Accordingly, the insolvency trustee has the right to such realisation, if the property is at his disposal. At once there is a question with a way of sale in such case, after all unlike realisation of real estate the German legislator does not make a specification here. Therefore, it is worth paying attention to the provisions of § 1235 of the German Civil Code [33]. This regulation stipulates that the collateral must be sold at a public auction.

The provision of p. 1 of § 1238 of the German Civil Code [33] attracts attention in terms of improving Ukrainian legislation since it stipulates that the sale of a mortgaged property can take place only if the buyer pays the full amount for the goods in cash, otherwise his rights are lost. Of course, the Ukrainian legislation also states something similar, but we have already described that there is a statutory delay in the payment of the full proper amount for the purchased goods. In addition, the Statute states that the insolvency trustee must provide information to the creditor regarding the property in case of its sale in accordance with § 166. The authors emphasise the provision of § 168, which states that before the sale, the insolvency trustee warns the creditor about the sale of a property. A creditor has the right within a week to determine another method of sale that would be more profitable for him. Thus, the authors conclude that the sale of a property is possible in any way in consultation with a non-competitive creditor.

It should be noted that in case of non-application of § 166 in accordance with the provisions of § 173, the non-competitive creditor has the right to independently sell the property belonging to him. However, Part 2 of this rule provides for the right of the court to set time limits for a non-competitive creditor and, in case of non-compliance, to oblige the insolvency trustee to sell the property. The authors also agree with the position of S. Greif, who noted that: “A creditor who has the right to a separate satisfaction may declare that the object does not belong to the bankruptcy estate, and demand its return, referring to the right seen from the legislation provisions outside the Statute” [7]. Therefore, it can be assumed that despite the obligation imposed by the German legislature on the insolvency trustee to sell the property of creditors with the right to separate satisfaction, in the latter for the most part there is the possibility for those creditors to perform self-realisation.

Summarising all the above-mentioned, the authors conclude that in Germany, the insolvency trustee is endowed with greater discretion, which, in turn, leaves room for all sorts of abuses. In the authors' opinion, such an experience is inappropriate for Ukraine, as we currently tend for the legislator to try to restrict the bankruptcy trustee as much as possible in the freedom of choice. Moreover, despite such restrictions, abuses by bankruptcy trustees remain possible. Therefore, it is even scary to imagine the consequences of using similar procedures with the German competitive process. On the other hand, the provisions of German law, which provide for a greater role of creditors' representative bodies in the sale of the debtor's property, are noteworthy because in this way the powers of the insolvency trustee are reduced. Therefore, in addition to the aboveprovided proposals, the authors consider it is necessary to make the following changes in domestic legislation.

Firstly, there is a need to move away from selling property at an auction. No, of course, such a type of sale must exist, but it cannot be non-alternative. Therefore, the authors propose to provide an opportunity for the secured creditor to sell the mortgaged property of the debtor independently out of competition. Such innovation will be especially relevant given the existing case law. In turn, the creditors' committee or assembly must be authorised to sell the debtor's property privately. However, despite this, the authors believe that the bankruptcy trustee should continue to sell the property at public auction with the help of a modified ETS. The authors would like to highlight that this approach is not a novelty, since it existed in the days of the Russian Empire, which, in particular, was noted by G. Shershenevich, who pointed out that the law gives to creditors' assembly the right to choose the method of property realisation [3, p. 428]. Secondly, it is necessary to remove from the Ukrainian legislation the provisions on the second repeated auction because its existence only contributes to the sale of property for a pittance. Instead of a second repeated auction, a meeting of the creditors' assembly or committee should be initiated, at which creditors should decide whether to sell the property privately or to hold the auction again. However, the price and conditions of such an auction should be determined by creditors themselves.

Legislative provisions on the functioning of the ETS also need to be improved. First of all, it is necessary to recognise the need for participation in the bidding of at least two buyers because with the participation of only one such bidding cannot be considered public. In addition, it is necessary to remove Part 3 of Art. 85 of the Bankruptcy Code. The authors are confident that with the introduction of these changes in the procedure of the realisation of bankrupt property, the bankruptcy procedure in Ukraine will become much more productive.

Conclusions

In this research, a theoretical and practical generalisation was made and the ways of solving the mentioned problems of legal regulation of the order were proposed, as well as the method of sale of the debtor's property in the bankruptcy (insolvency) procedure under the law of Ukraine and Germany. As a result of the study, the authors came to the following conclusions:

1. The provisions of the Bankruptcy Code regulating the sale of bankrupt property contain many problematic issues that complicate the work of law enforcement agencies, and therefore need an immediate resolution.

2. Notwithstanding the high hopes and expectations placed on the ETS, currently the electronic trading system does not cope with the set task.

3. Unlike Ukraine, in Germany the sale of the debtor's property at auction is considered an unprofitable and unjustifiably long procedure.

4. In Germany, the insolvency trustee privately sells the debtor's property, according to which the discretion of his powers is much wider than his prototype in Ukraine, and therefore, the German insolvency trustee has room for various abuses.

5. For Ukraine, Germany's experience in the sale of the debtor's property is not entirely relevant. At the same time, there is a possibility of its partial borrowing.

6. Ukraine should move away from the mandatory sale of bankrupt property at auction and authorise the representative bodies of creditors to sell property privately.

7. It is argued that due to the existing case law, secured creditors in Ukraine are currently in a rather difficult situation, and therefore it is necessary to authorise them at the legislative level to independently sell the mortgaged property of the debtor.

8. It is proposed to increase the guarantee fees of auction participants to 50%, as well as in case of their illegal behavior to apply restrictions to such participants in the right to further participation in the repeated auction.

9. Legislation on the application of the second repeated auction should be removed, as its existence only facilitates the sale of property for a pittance.

10. It is stated that bidding cannot be considered public if there is only one participant, and therefore it is necessary to recognise the mandatory participation of at least two buyers.

11. It is noted about the urgency of providing in the Bankruptcy Code an exhaustive list of conditions under which the transaction made at the auction for the sale of the debtor's property in bankruptcy proceedings may be declared invalid. Furthermore, it will also be appropriate to indicate the list of subjects of appeal and set a one-month non-renewable period for appealing its results in order to ensure the transiency of the bankruptcy procedure, compliance with the deadlines for liquidation, and protect the rights of future bona fide owners of the property, which was sold at auction.

12. It is argued that p. 3 of Art. 85 of the Bankruptcy Code on deferral of payment by the buyer of the due second part for the goods must be removed in connection with the existence of a legal prohibition in establishing deferrals at the contractual level (p. 3 of Article 63 of the Bankruptcy Code).

References

1. Bankruptcy Procedure Code of Ukraine. (2018, October). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2597-19#Text.

2. Law of Ukraine No. 2343-XII “On Reestablishing Debtor Solvency or Declaring Bankruptcy”. (1992, May). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2597-19.

3. Shershenevich, G.F. (1898). Competitive law (2nd edition). Kazan: Tipografiya Imperatorskogo Universiteta.

4. Endemann, W. (1889). Das deutsche Konkursverfahren. Leipzig: Fues's Verlag (R. Reislani).

5. Thaller, E. (1887). Des failittes en droit compare. Paris: Librarire nouvelle de droit et de jurisprudence.

6. Poliakov, B.M. (2011). The insolvency (bankruptcy) law in Ukraine. Kyiv: In Yure.

7. Greif, S. (2011). Insolvenzordnung: Hinweise fur Glaubiger. Retrieved from https://www.ihk- krefeld.de/de/recht/merkblaetter2/insolvenzordnung-hinweise-fuer-glaeubiger.html.

8. Titova, O.V., & Kalachenkova, K.O. (2016). For sale property іп the proceedings bankruptcy. Bulletin of the Southern Regional Center of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine, 9, 76-82.

9. Haverkamp, N. (2014). Was passiert mit der Immobilie des Schuldners in der Privatinsolvenz? Retrieved from https://www.ahs-kanzlei.de/2014-09-die-immobilie-der-privatinsolvenz-darf-der-schuldner-diese-behalten.

10. Haverkamp, N. (2016). Wann haftet der Insolvenzverwalter? Retrieved from https://www.ahs- kanzlei.de/de/2016-11-wann-haftet-der-insolvenzverwalter.

11. Tyurina, Yu.Ye. (2021). Regarding the concept of sale of the debtor's property in bankruptcy proceedings. Legal Horizons, 14(1), 52-58.

12. Gurrea-Martinez, A. (2021). Implementing an insolvency framework for micro and small firms. International Insolvency Review, 30(S1), 46-66. doi: 10.1002/iir.1422S66.

13. McCormack, G. (2021). The European Restructuring Directive and stays on creditor enforcement actions. International Insolvency Review, 30(S1), 67-88. doi: 10.1002/iir.1423.

14. Schillig, M. (2021). EU bank insolvency law harmonization: What next? International Insolvency Review, 30(2), 239-266. doi: 10.1002/iir.1413.

15. Hollemans, R., & van Dijck, G. (2020). “Come and talk”: The insolvency judge as de-escalator. International Insolvency Review, 29(3), 360-378. doi: 10.1002/iir.1388.

16. Bose, U., Filomeni, S., & Mallick, S. (2021). Does bankruptcy law improve the fate of distressed firms? The role of credit channels. Journal of Corporate Finance, 68. doi: 10.1016/j.jcorpfin.2020.101836.

17. Dankiewicz, R. (2020). Analysis of companies' bankruptcy in Poland as compared with the cost of protection under trade credit insurance. Journal of International Studies, 13(4), 197-212. doi: 10.14254/20718330.2020/13-4/14.

18. Hausch, D.B., & Ramachandran, S. (2009). Systemic financial distress and auction-based bankruptcy reorganization. International Review of Economics & Finance, 18(3), 366-380. doi: 10.1016/j.iref.2008.09.007.

19. Malyshev, K.I. (2007). Selected works on the competitive process and other institutions of commercial law. Moscow: Statut.

20. Pidhorodetska, A. (2019). Reform of the insolvency system: Anti-corruption direction of the Ukrainian Code of Bankruptcy Procedure. In Application of the norms of the Code of Ukraine on Bankruptcy Procedures (pp. 6-14). Kyiv: Alerta.

21. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 865 “Issues of Functioning of the Electronic Trading System for the Sale of Debtors' Property in Bankruptcy Cases (Insolvency)”. (2019, October). Retrieved from ttps://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/865-2019-n#Text.

22. Poliakov, B.M. (2020). Ocean's twelve, or How to outwit the “Prozorro” system at an auction in bankruptcy proceedings. Law and Business, 4(1462).

23. Resolution of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine No. 432 “On Approval of the Procedure for conducting electronic auctions for the sale of small privatization objects and the definition of additional conditions of sale”. (2018, May). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/432-2018-ntfText.

24. Law of Ukraine No. 2269-VIII “On Privatization of the State and Municipal Property”. (2018, January). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2269-19tfText.

25. Resolution of the Northen Commercial Court of Appeal No. 925/1500/17. (2021, March). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/95672764.

26. Resolution of the Judicial Chamber for Bankruptcy Cases of the Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in the Case No. 5006/5/396/2012. (2019, October). Retrieved from https://cutt.ly/BUWOPNm.

27. Civil Code of Ukraine. (2003, July). Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/435-15tfText.

28. Resolution of the Supreme Court of Ukraine in case No. 6-370цс16. (2016, June). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/58736540.

29. Resolution of the Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in the case No. 14/325 “b” (2020, March). Retrieved from https://reyestr.court.gov.ua/Review/88211867.

30. Resolution of the Judicial Chamber for Bankruptcy Cases of the Commercial Court of Cassation of the Supreme Court in the Case No. 904/1360/19. (2021, February). Retrieved from https://cutt.ly/8UWOBCq.

31. Insolvenzordnung. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://cutt.ly/rUWORVT.

32. Lasser, D. (2009). Was geschieht mit den Immobilien? Retrieved from https://cutt.ly/TUWOWio.

33. Burgerliches Gesetzbuch. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/.

Размещено на Allbest.ru