The Hungarian Supreme Court has ruled that in a lawsuit initiated by an insolvent debtor, a creditor’s claim arising after the commencement date of the liquidation cannot be enforced as a set-off claim against the debtor.

Background

Restructuring proceedings in Hungary provide a more flexible solution than bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings and potentially an effective alternative for companies in financial difficulties.

Key benefits

Commencement pre-insolvency

Objective

The new preventive restructuring procedure aims to deal with companies in financial difficulty before serious problems arise. The measures focus on preventing the insolvency of businesses to preserve their viability.

Main characteristics

Although no insolvency law-specific regulatory changes have been introduced in Hungary due to COVID-19, the Hungarian Government has adopted numerous extraordinary measures that may have a profound effect on how companies deal with solvency and liquidity related problems under the new circumstances.

Firstly, although the bankruptcy procedure is to be initiated by the management of the company, the prior approval of the main body of the company (ie the shareholders) is required. Due to the curfew currently in effect, in-person shareholders’ meetings are mostly prohibited.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.

Following the EU Insolvency Regulation Nr. 2015/848 (the “Regulation”) coming into force, the Hungarian legislator has accordingly amended the Hungarian Insolvency Code (the “Code”) with effect from 28 October 2017.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer