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
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.
“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).
The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.
A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).
While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]
An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.
Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.