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.

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.

In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit examined whether circuit courts have jurisdiction to hear direct appeals of unauthorized bankruptcy court orders that have not been reviewed by a district court. This was an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit. The appellate court held that a bankruptcy court’s ruling in a non-core proceeding that has not been reviewed by the district court carries no adjudicative authority and is therefore not directly appealable to the circuit court.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Ambro, has reversed two district court opinions and refused to allow a company to use a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing as a means to reduce interest on its debt obligations. Specifically, the court held that filing for bankruptcy would not excuse a debtor from its obligation for a “make-whole” payment otherwise due to its lenders.

On May 4, 2016, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that a bankruptcy settlement in the form of a tender offer did not violate the principles of the bankruptcy process. See opinion here.

On March 1, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court heard argument on the seemingly simple question of what “actual fraud” means.  The Court’s decision will have a significant impact on the reach of the exception to discharge under Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

A district court judge in the Middle District of Pennsylvania recently vacated a bankruptcy court’s decision allowing rejection of an oil and gas lease under section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.  The District Court held that a debtor’s oil and gas lease was a conveyance of an interest in real property and not an executory contract or unexpired lease that could be rejected in bankruptcy under Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.