Nametanje plana reorganizacije nesaglasnoj klasi poverilaca

Abstract

Rad razmatra razloge zbog kojih je uvođenje instituta nametanja plana nesaglasnoj klasi poverilaca (engl. cram-down) u trenutnim okolnostima i u kontekstu stečajne prakse u Republici Srbiji neprimereno i može negativno uticati na efikasnost stečajnog postupka. U prvom delu rad analizira institut 'nametanja plana nesaglasnoj klasi poverilaca' i uslove potrebne za potvrđivanje (usvajanje) plana reorganizacije u uporednom pravu. U drugom delu razmatramo niz faktora koji čine predloženi institut znatno manje potrebnim u našim uslovima, pre svega nizak prag potreban za usvajanje plana, postojeće nametanje plana klasi povezanih lica i vlasnicima stečajnog dužnika, formiranje samo jedne klase razlučnih poverilaca, kao i faktora koji ograničavaju njegovu potencijalnu primenu u stečajnoj praksi.

This paper discusses possible introduction of the cram-down provisions in the Serbian Law on Bankruptcy and argues that in the current circumstances and taking into account current bankruptcy practice in Serbia, these provisions are inappropriate and could adversely affect the efficiency of the bankruptcy proceedings. In the first part of the paper, we review cram-down in comparative law. The second part looks at a range of factors that make the proposed institute considerably less necessary, including low threshold required for the adoption of the plan, the existing provisions that impose a plan on a class of related persons (and owners), formation of only one class of secured creditors, as well as factors that limit potential application of cram down in bankruptcy practice.