The thesis provides a detailed overview of crisis resolution options available to distressed companies in the Czech legal environment. The work starts by describing the most common causes of corporate distress in attempt to understand the process of decline and define the key steps to prevent crisis in the early stage. We then proceed to discuss the methods of resolution that can be applied in the early pre-bankruptcy stages of distress, including downsizing and divestitures, out-of-court settlement with creditors, mergers with or acquisition by strategic or financial investors, or voluntary liquidations. Further on, the work provides a comprehensive summary of the Insolvency Act, the Czech legislation governing bankruptcy proceedings, concentrating on the option that could preserve business operations of troubled companies -- reorganisation. In the practical part of the thesis, the author evaluates the reorganisation plan of ČKD Kutná Hora, a.s., focusing on the company-specific issues and assessing the viability of the plan according to a number of success and risk factors, as well as the objectives stipulated by the Insolvency Act.

LLM / Department of Mercantile Law / Business rescue provisions are meant to assist a financially distressed company. It seems that the success of business rescue rests on three factors, namely a competent business rescue practitioner and a practicable business rescue plan; the consent and cooperation of shareholders and creditors. However, academics and case law point out concerns as to the regulation of the aforementioned essential ingredients. The purpose of this study is to ascertain the level of the efficacy of the Companies Act provisions on business rescue as contained in Chapter 6. The researcher compares the current business rescue regime and the previous judicial management procedure to find out how the current regime can be improved. Since the business rescue regime was adopted from other jurisdictions the researcher also compares the practices in some of those jurisdictions with that of South Africa to establish the goals and expectations of business rescue in modern corporate operations. / NRF

Appelés à s’appliquer concurremment pour traiter les difficultés d’une société, il est classiquement considéré que les relations entre le droit des sociétés et le droit des entreprises en difficulté se résument à des conflits pouvant être résolus en faisant prévaloir le « droit spécial » des procédures collectives sur le « droit commun » des sociétés. Cette analyse a perdu de sa pertinence en raison de la mutation du droit des faillites en droit des entreprises en difficulté dont la finalité, le contenu, et le domaine d’application ont profondément changé, ainsi qu’en raison de la contractualisation des deux matières. Ces évolutions ont induit une appréhension nouvelle de celles-ci. Sont en effet recherchées, tant par les sociétés en difficulté que par leurs créanciers, les potentialités de l’association du droit des sociétés et du droit des entreprises en difficulté pour organiser le rebond d’une société défaillante. Leurs relations en droit positif s’avèrent ainsi plus subtiles et plus complexes. Une synergie existe entre elles lors du règlement à l’amiable des difficultés, tandis qu’une véritable soumission du droit des sociétés au droit des entreprises en difficulté peut être constatée lors du règlement judiciaire des difficultés. Malgré des origines distinctes, des finalités propres, et des fonctions radicalement opposées, une logique anime les relations des deux matières révélant un corpus légal et jurisprudentiel utilisé pour le règlement des difficultés qui témoigne de l’existence d’un droit des sociétés en difficulté. / It is commonly understood that, when considering ailing companies, the conflicts that arise between concurrently applicable corporate law and insolvency law can be solved with “special law” that prevails over “ordinary law”. This understanding has lost some relevance through the transformation of “bankruptcy law” into “distressed business law”. The trend towards the use of explicit contracts in these fields is bringing about a change in their finality, content and scope. This evolution of corporate law and insolvency law is creating new apprehension on the part of both the distressed company and the creditors, with the result that both parties are looking for means to combine these subjects when organising the recovery of an ailing firm. Their coexistence in substantive law turns out to be even more subtle and complex. In the case of an amicable settlement of a dispute, a synergy exists between corporate law and insolvency law whereas when a settlement is imposed under court supervision, the prevalence of insolvency law over corporate law is notable. Despite distinct origins, differing finality and radically opposing functions, a common logic motivates the relation between corporate law and insolvency law revealing a legal corpus and case law as a testament to the existence of an “ailing company law”.