The Facts

The debtor borrowed significantly from leading domestic investment banks to finance a major construction project. The loan was secured by a pledge established on all of the debtor’s existing and future claims, including rental fees arising from an office building owned by the debtor.

What Happens to Pledges over Receivables when the Pledgor goes into Liquidation?

Hungarian insolvency law provides for a right of the liquidator to terminate, with immediate effect, contracts concluded by the debtor, or – in case neither of the parties rendered any services – to rescind the contract. This applies even in cases where contractual provisions or relevant legislation would otherwise prohibit the termination of the given contract.

With the effect of 1 September 2015, Hungary introduces legal provisions on personal insolvency. Such procedure is reserved for private individuals (may they be entrepreneurs or consumers), who have debts between HUF 2 mln (approx. EUR 6,500) and HUF 60 mln (approx.EUR 195,000).

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

Under Hungarian insolvency law, creditors secured by mortgages or pledges are entitled to privileged satisfaction of their claim, meaning concretely that they are entitled to receive the whole proceeds reached in the course of the realization of the pledged property after deduction of the (i) cost of keeping the property in good repair and of maintenance, and costs of selling the pledged property; and (ii) the liquidator’s fee up to 5% of the net purchase price.

Potential liability for wrongful trading

In Hungary the Act no. XLIX of 1991 on the insolvency and compulsory winding up procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Insolvency Act”) established the term “wrongful trading”. Under section 33/A of the Insolvency Act a manager of a company shall be personally liable if after the occurrence of threatening insolvency (i.e. when the company is unable to settle its liabilities when due) the director’s duties have not been fulfilled based on the priority of the company’s creditors’ interest.

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.