Despite optimistic predictions earlier in 2022, slowedglobal growth resulting, in part, from the war in Ukraine has elevated inflation and interest rates, reducing the availability of credit, increasing business borrowing costs and threatening the ability of companies to retain the confidence of their

Yeni Gelişme

4299 sayılı ve 14 Temmuz 2021 tarihli Cumhurbaşkanlığı kararı ile Çerçeve Anlaşmalar kapsamında gerçekleştirilen finansal yeniden yapılandırma işlemlerini ve bu işlemler için tanınan teşvikler ve vergi muafiyetlerini düzenleyen Bankacılık Kanunu’nun geçici 32. maddesinin geçerlilik süresi iki yıl daha uzatıldı. Geçici 32. Madde ve Çerçeve Anlaşma’ya ilişkin bültenlerimize aşağıdaki bağlantılardan ulaşabilirsiniz:

Değişiklik Ne Getiriyor?

Recent development

With a presidential decision numbered 4299 and dated 14 July 2021, the effectiveness of Temporary Article 32 of the Banking Law regulating the financial restructuring transactions and related incentives and tax exemptions contemplated under the Framework Agreement has been extended for an additional two years. Please refer to the following links for our alerts on the introduction of Temporary Article 32 and the Framework Agreement:

What’s new?

The Commercial List of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice recently granted an order structurally similar to a reverse vesting order in the receivership proceedings of Vert Infrastructure Ltd. (Vert). This first-of-its-kind order was granted on the motion of Vert’s receiver, KSV Restructuring Inc. (KSV).¹

Although 2020 may be behind us, the economic conditions and lockdowns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic still linger. With the emerging picture for Canada in 2021 looking to largely resemble that of 2020, many are wondering how long struggling businesses and their creditors can hold their breath while waiting for improved cash flows and customer demand.

In Shameeka Ien v. TransCare Corp., et al. (In re TransCareCorp.), Case No. 16-10407, Adv. P. No. 16-01033 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May 7, 2020) [D.I. 157], the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently refused to dismiss WARN Act claims against Patriarch Partners, LLC, private equity firm (“PE Firm“), and its owner, Lynn Tilton (“PE Owner“), resulting from the staggered chapter 7 bankruptcies of several portfolio companies, TransCare Corporation and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors“).

Joining three other bankruptcy courts, Judge Thuma of the District of New Mexico recently held that the rules issued by the Small Business Administration (“SBA“) that restrict bankrupt entities from participating in the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP“) violated the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, H.R. 748, P.L. 115-136 (the “CARES Act”), as well as section 525(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The Southern District of New York recently reminded us in In re Firestar Diamond, Inc., et al., Case No. 18-10509 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. April 22, 2019) (SHL) [Dkt. No. 1482] that equitable principles in bankruptcy often do not match those outside of bankruptcy. Indeed, bankruptcy decisions often place emphasis on equality of treatment amongst all creditors and are less concerned with inequities to individual creditors.

Introduction

In Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., f/b/o Jerome Guyant, IRA v. Highland Construction Management Services, L.P. et al., Nos. 18-2450-52 (4th Cir. March 17, 2020), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld that a borrower’s indirect economic interests in a limited liability company (LLC) were not assigned to a lender under a conveyance in a security agreement assigning mere membership interests, pursuant to Virginia state law.

Facts