Recent Development

The Turkish Parliament enacted a law amending the composition (tr. "konkordato," a Turkish scheme of arrangement) articles in the Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy in response to widespread abuse of the composition proceedings. The changes are effective as of the date of promulgation on the Official Gazette, 19 December 2018, with pending applications remaining subject to the previous version of the provisions.

The Amendments

The major amendments are summarized below.

Yeni Gelişme  

Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi, konkordato sürecinin suiistimal edildiğine ilişkin gelen tepkileri göz önünde bulundurarak, İcra ve İflas Kanunu'ndaki konkordato hükümlerinde değişiklikler öngören kanun teklifini yasalaştırmıştır. Değişiklikler 19 Aralık 2018 tarihinde Resmi Gazete’de yayımlanarak yürürlüğe girmiştir. Ancak görülmekte olan konkordato talepleri hakkında önceki hükümler uygulanmaya devam edecektir.

Kabul Edilen Değişiklikler  

Önemli değişiklikler aşağıda özetlenmiştir.

On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.

On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.

When it comes to voting on a plan, Section 1126(e) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that a bankruptcy court may designate (or disallow) the votes of any entity whose vote to accept or reject was not made in “good faith” (a term that is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code).

Recent Development

The Law on the Amendments to the Code of Enforcement and Bankruptcy and Certain Laws ("Law No. 7101") was published on the Official Gazette on March 15, 2018.

Background

As a result of the studies conducted by the Coordination Council for the Improvement of the Investment Environment, the Law No. 7101 was introduced to the Turkish Parliament.