Contractul de furnizare la proba de foc a insolvenței
Contract for supply to fire proof of insolvency

Summary/Abstract: During the observation period and/or during judicial reorganization, the insolvent debtor is the captive consumer of the utility provider or the latter is the "captive creditor" of the insolvent debtor? The diagnosis of this dilemma must start from the dichotomy between past claims and post-insolvency claims, a delimitation that not only reveals the ontological status of the supply contract, but also the status of the service provider. The high temperature resistance test of the supply contract, which obviously concerns the hypothesis of maintaining the contract by the court administrator, is that although the services provided during the observation/reorganization period generate current receivables in the supplier's assets, the legislator gives it the debtor has a 90-day payment term, even if the contract provides for a shorter payout term, an invasive legal provision that grossly modifies the cash flow of current receivables. These issues culminate with the impossibility of the supplier to request the termination of the contract if the debtor fails to pay, within 90 days, the current debts, correlated with the supplier's ability to interrupt service delivery, but also with the obligation to resume the supply in the case of payment of current debts or, if not, worse for the debtor and the other creditors, with the possibility of the provider to request the opening of the bankruptcy procedure. All these fluctuating options created by the legislator outline an incendiary scenario involving "play with fire", the provider being able to be fined for each breach of supply obligations, and the debtor may risk temporarily blocking the business or even bankruptcy in the event of failure to pay for these services.

• Details
• Contents