Judge Daniela Salazar convened a public hearing to hear arguments for and against the decree-law on business restructuring, presented by President Guillermo Lasso on July 7. This will take place next Thursday, July 20, at 10:30 a.m., in person and online.

This initiative, as explained by the regime, seeks to modernize the company’s bankruptcy procedure, equalize the position of debtors and creditors in the pursuit of reorganization of economically viable companies or, otherwise, the orderly liquidation of companies whose operational line is unfeasible.

The car with which he announced the knowledge of the project, Salazar invited the president of Lasso and the supervisor of companies, securities and insurance, Marcos López; Other interested parties can also participate by registering at ana.morales@cce.gob.ec until Tuesday, July 18 at 4:30 p.m.

In addition, he asked academia, professional unions and the general public to send theirs amicus curiae on the topic, which are also accepted until Tuesday, July 18.

Places to participate in the discussion are limited, so presenters will be notified amicus curiae and have applied to participate in the discussion if their participation is deemed necessary.

Salazar also ordered the Supervisory Board to submit a report with its criteria on economic urgency and the constitutionality of the aforementioned regulation; and others with data on how many companies in the last ten years have entered the termination and liquidation procedure, how many are estimated to be at risk of starting the termination and liquidation procedure before the State Assembly takes office, and how many of them have accepted pre-bankruptcy agreements regulated by the Organic the law on humanitarian aid.

This is the fourth legal decree that Lasso has sent to the court since he decided on the death cross, which dissolved parliament and called presidential and legislative elections.

The previous three are as follows: one called for the strengthening of the family economy; the second to create free zones; and another for forgiveness of overdue education loan debts. The first was approved; the other no; and the third is pending before the same court.