Recent Development
The Turkish Parliament enacted a law amending the composition (tr. "konkordato," a Turkish scheme of arrangement) articles in the Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy in response to widespread abuse of the composition proceedings. The changes are effective as of the date of promulgation on the Official Gazette, 19 December 2018, with pending applications remaining subject to the previous version of the provisions.
The Amendments
The major amendments are summarized below.
Yeni Gelişme
Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, konkordato sürecinin suiistimal edildiğine ilişkin gelen tepkileri göz önünde bulundurarak, İcra ve İflas Kanunu'ndaki konkordato hükümlerinde değişiklikler öngören kanun teklifini yasalaştırmıştır. Değişiklikler 19 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Resmi Gazete’de yayımlanarak yürürlüğe girmiştir. Ancak görülmekte olan konkordato talepleri hakkında önceki hükümler uygulanmaya devam edecektir.
Kabul Edilen Değişiklikler
Önemli değişiklikler aşağıda özetlenmiştir.
The recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Provider Meds, L.L.C. is a stark reminder to chapter 7 trustees that they have an affirmative obligation to examine a debtor’s assets. A trustee’s failure to conduct a sufficient and timely examination may deprive the estate of significant value.
In prior posts, we discussed the perplexing issue of how and whether a trademark licensee is protected when the trademark owner/licensor files a bankruptcy petition and moves to reject the trademark license in accordance with section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.
We have discussed plan releases in prior posts. Oftentimes, disputes involving plan releases revolve around whether, and in what contexts, third-party releases in plans are appropriate. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals addressed the relatively unique question of whether releases in a confirmed plan are binding upon post-confirmation purchasers of the debtor’s stock.
Can an individual debtor make an oral false statement about an asset to a creditor and get away with it by discharging the creditor’s claim in his or her bankruptcy? On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling in which the Court unanimously answered this question in the affirmative.
Can the recipient of an actual fraudulent transfer effectively “cleanse” the transfer if the funds are returned to the debtor? In a recent opinion, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania answered that question in the affirmative.
How real is the threat to the District of Delaware and the Southern District of New York as the prime venue choices for corporate Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases? It appears that both are safe, at least for now.
Recent Development
The Law on the Amendments to the Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy and Certain Laws ("Law No. 7101") was published on the Official Gazette on March 15, 2018.
Background
As a result of the studies conducted by the Coordination Council for the Improvement of the Investment Environment, the Law No. 7101 was introduced to the Turkish Parliament.
Certain licensees of intellectual property are expressly given expanded rights when their licensors file bankruptcy. But what about trademark licensees? Trademarks are not among the defined categories of “intellectual property” for bankruptcy purposes. Nonetheless, are trademark licensees otherwise protected in a licensor bankruptcy? Unfortunately for these licensees, a recent circuit court decision put the brakes on attempts to expand protection to licensees of trademarks.