Summary

The Existing System

Despite its introduction to the Slovak legal system in 2006, current laws on debt relief within the framework of bankruptcy of natural persons have not been a viable solution.

Basing the legal institute of debt relief on a two-step procedure:

• starting with bankruptcy (i.e. liquidation of (all) the debtor’s assets)
• then followed by a three-year trial period at the end of which the court releases a resolution on the possibility of personal bankruptcy

has in fact hindered debtors from filing.

In an earlier blog piece we reported on the Third Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp. where the Court approved a settlement, implemented through a structured dismissal, which allowed junior creditors to receive a distribution prior to senior creditors being paid in full.

While secured creditors are entitled to special rights in bankruptcy, those rights may differ depending on whether creditors have a statutory or consensual lien on their collateral. This is primarily because section 552(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in part, that “property acquired by the estate or by the debtor after the commencement of the case is not subject to any lien resulting from any security agreement . . .

It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement.  However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?

It is said that muddy water is best cleared by leaving it be.  The Supreme Court’s December 4 decision to review the legality of Puerto Rico’s local bankruptcy law, the Recovery Act, despite a well-reasoned First Circuit Court of Appeals opinion affirming the U.S. District Court in San Juan’s decision voiding the Recovery Act on the grounds that it conflicts with Section 903 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, suggests, at a minimum, that at least four of the Justices deemed the questions raised too interesting to let the First Circuit have the last word.

Two major Slovakian construction companies, both heavily dependent on large state contracts, have recently been restructured. Both of these cases have proven that Slovakian entrepreneurs, even those who live off of public money, perceive and utilise the current regulation of the restructuring procedure as a “legally safe way” to restart their businesses and get rid of a large portion of creditors. This option is viable also in a moment, when the only solution clearly is a bankruptcy petition.

The Bankruptcy Code generally permits intellectual property licensees to continue using licensed property despite a licensor’s bankruptcy filing. However, because the “intellectual property” definition in the Bankruptcy Code does not include “trademarks,” courts have varied on whether trademark licensees receive similar protection. A New Jersey bankruptcy court recently grappled with this issue, concluding that trademark licensees may retain their trademark rights.

Slovakia is getting ready for a major amendment of the Commercial Code, which will also amend the Slovak Act on Bankruptcy and Restructuring. Significant changes are expected in the corporate as well as bankruptcy and restructuring law sector which is underperforming and provides insufficient protection to creditors, despite many previous attempts to improve the regulation of this area.

In a recent bench decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC et al., Case No. 14-22503-RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. August 26, 2014), the Bankruptcy Court considered bondholders’ right to recover make-whole premiums (premiums paid for early repayment of debt) upon the payment of accelerated debt following the borrower’s bankruptcy default. The Court ruled that the governing loan documents lacked specific language requiring a make-whole premium upon acceleration.