Amid the current market uncertainties, distressed asset sales are likely to rise. International investors are looking for efficient solutions, preferably ones that reflect solutions in their home jurisdictions. One popular mechanism is the use of pre-pack sales. A pre-pack sale manages the adverse impact of insolvency proceedings on the distressed company’s business, while reducing the time and cost of such proceedings, and offering greater asset realisation to be distributed among creditors.
As previewed in our prior post, Poland’s simplified restructuring proceeding (uproszczone postępowanie restrukturyzacyjne) is now in effect. The enabling legislation – with only minor changes from the description in our prior post affecting such restructurings – was finally adopted on 19 June 2020, signed into law on 23 June 2020 and took effect the same day.
Poland’s Parliament (the Sejm, the lower House of Parliament) is close to passage of an extraordinary debtor restructuring relief law as part of its fourth COVID-19 crisis legislation.
The measure, referred to as Shield Law 4.0 (Tarcza 4.0) would:
The coronavirus pandemic poses new risks and challenges for business at a scale unknown before. In order to assist businesses, the Polish government has announced that a PLN 212 bn ($53bn) stimulus package will be put in place. For a summary see our previous post. Start up of the aid package will take time, and the shape of further aid to come is as yet unknown.
The Bankruptcy Code gives special protections to licensees of intellectual property when a debtor, as licensor, seeks to reject the license. However, the Bankruptcy Code does not include trademarks in its definition of “intellectual property.” So, are licensees of trademarks given any protection when debtors reject trademark licenses? If the Supreme Court grants a recent petition for writ of certiorari, we may get an answer.
One of the many questions asked by our clients is: “Does Polish law recognise the concept of ‘piercing the corporate veil?’” Is it possible to disregard the separate legal personality of a company or corporation and make shareholders liable for the debts of the company? This question has been asked since the introduction of the market economy in Poland (in 1989) and there is still no clear answer.
As they say, what one hand giveth, the other hand taketh. In its recent decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed make-whole premiums and cramdown rates of interest (among other issues not addressed here), issuing rulings that will impact creditors and debtors alike.
Do a lessee’s possessory interests in real property survive a “free and clear” sale of the property under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code? In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said “no,” holding that section 365(h) did not protect the interest of the lessee in the context of a section 363 sale when there had been no prior formal rejection of the lease under section 365.
Recently, the bankruptcy court presiding over the Energy Futures chapter 11 case issued an opinion analyzing the interplay between an intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall and payments to be made under the debtors’ multi-step reorganization plan. The court rejected a secured creditor’s argument that the intercreditor agreement’s distribution waterfall was triggered by one step of that reorganization.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court issued is highly awaited ruling in Czyzewski et al. v. Jevic Holding Corp. et al. The Jevic case presented the question whether bankruptcy courts may approve non-consensual structured dismissals that vary the distribution scheme established by the Bankruptcy Code.