The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

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.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

Summary

As from 1 July 2017, several amendments to the Hungarian Insolvency Code will come into force which will grant some creditors a much better position in their debtors’ insolvency procedures.

Current Legislation

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

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?

On March 29, 2016, the Second Circuit addressed the breadth and application of the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions in an opinion that applied to two cases before it.  The court analyzed whether: (i) the Bankruptcy Code's safe harbor provisions preempt individual creditors' state law fraudulent conveyance claims; and (ii) the automatic stay bars creditors from asserting such claims while the trustee is actively pursuing similar claims under the Bankruptcy Code.  In In re Tribune Co.

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).

The District Court for the Central District of California recently held that an assignee that acquired rights to a terminated swap agreement was not a "swap participant" under the Bankruptcy Code and, therefore, could not invoke safe harbors based on that status to foreclose on collateral in the face of the automatic stay. ^[1] The court ruled that the assignee acquired only a right to collect payment under the swap agreement, not the assignor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code to exercise remedies without first seeking court approval.

Background