English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The creditors who hold more than 50% of the total value of the claims with voting right can decide the appointment of a judicial administrator, establishing the fee, which represents the application of the principle regulated by art. 45 paragraph (2) of Law no. 85 of 2014 on the procedures for preventing insolvency and for insolvency (Romanian Parliament, 2014) (further referred to as “the Insolvency Law”), according to which the duties of the syndic-judge are limited to the judicial control of the activity of the judicial administrator and to the judicial processes and requests related to the insolvency procedure, while the opportunity of the operations is controlled by the creditors. Consequently, when the creditors have established that it is appropriate to confirm as definitive judicial administrator the same person in whose provisional designation an irregularity has been committed, the rectification of this irregularity, in the sense of finding its wrong appointment as provisional judicial administrator, can no longer have legal effects.

jurnalul de studii juridice

Legal Effects of the Wrongful Appointment as Provisional Judicial Administrator after the Moment when the Creditors have Confirmed the Same Person as the Definitive Judicial Administrator