Yeni Gelişme
Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Büyük Genel Kurulu’nun 3 Haziran 2022 tarih ve 2021/1 E., 2022/3 K. sayılı Kararı (“İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı“), 26 Kasım 2022’de Resmi Gazete’de yayımlandı. İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı uyarınca, aleyhine icra takibi başlatılan borçlu, takibe vekili aracılığıyla itiraz etse dahi, alacaklının açacağı itirazın iptali davasında dava dilekçesi vekile değil asıla (borçlunun kendisine) tebliğ edilmelidir.
Gelişme Ne Anlama Geliyor?
Recent development
The UK Supreme Court handed down its decision in BTI v Sequana on 5 October 2022, unanimously dismissing the appeal from the 2019 Court of Appeal decision and confirming how directors duties ought to be applied when a company is in the zone of insolvency. Although decisions of the UK Supreme Court are not binding upon the jurisdictions in which Ogier practises law, it will nevertheless be highly persuasive and influence the approach taken in the offshore jurisdictions that Ogier advises upon.
Yeni Gelişme
5. Yargı Paketi olarak da anılan İcra ve İflas Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkında Kanun Teklifi (“Teklif”), TBMM Adalet Komisyonu tarafından kabul edildi. Kabul edilen Teklifin kanunlaştırılması doğrultusunda Salı günü TBMM Genel Kurulu’nda görüşmeler başladı. Söz konusu Teklif ile icra ve iflas süreçlerinde iş yoğunluğunun azaltılması ve verimliliğin artırılması amacıyla İcra ve İflas Kanunu’nda önemli değişiklikler öngörülüyor.
New development
The Justice Commission of the Parliament accepted the Bill on Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code and Other Codes (“Bill“), also known as the Fifth Judicial Package. In line with the enactment of the accepted Bill, discussions began at the General Assembly of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey on Tuesday. With the Bill, significant changes are envisaged regarding the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code to reduce workload and increase efficiency in enforcement and bankruptcy processes.
The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.
Legal claims can only be brought within the applicable limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act (1996 Revision). A defendant to any claim that is time-barred has a complete defence. Prior to the recent decision ofRitchie Capital Management LLC et al (Ritchie) v Lancelot Investors Fund Ltd (Lancelot) and General Electric Company (GE), it had been generally understood that the Cayman approach to claims against companies in liquidation would follow the English position on the issue of limitation.
In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Factual Background