The Irish High Court has determined that the liquidation of an Irish aircraft leasing company, which was a 100% subsidiary of a Russian company expressly subject to EU sanctions, rebuts the presumption that the company was controlled by the Russian parent for the purpose of EU sanctions.

This enables the liquidators to deal with the assets without costly and time-consuming derogation applications.

Background

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?

In bankruptcy as in federal jurisprudence generally, to characterize something with the near-epithet of “federal common law” virtually dooms it to rejection.

The recent restructuring of the Norwegian Group by the Irish High Court helpfully clarifies the application of the Cape Town Convention in Irish restructuring. It is also an interesting case study regarding the circumstances in which the Irish courts will restructure a group of companies, which is not headquartered in Ireland.

In January 2020 we reported that, after the reconsideration suggested by two Supreme Court justices and revisions to account for the Supreme Court’s Merit Management decision,[1] the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stood by its origina

It seems to be a common misunderstanding, even among lawyers who are not bankruptcy lawyers, that litigation in federal bankruptcy court consists largely or even exclusively of disputes about the avoidance of transactions as preferential or fraudulent, the allowance of claims and the confirmation of plans of reorganization. However, with a jurisdictional reach that encompasses “all civil proceedings . . .

I don’t know if Congress foresaw, when it enacted new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Code[1] in the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), that debtors in pending cases would seek to convert or redesignate their cases as Subchapter V cases when SBRA became effective on February 19, 2020, but it was foreseeable.

Our February 26 post [1] reported on the first case dealing with the question whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case may redesignate it as a case under Subchapter V, [2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by the Small Business Reorganization Act of 2019 (“SBRA”), which became effective on February 19.

Our February 26 post entitled “SBRA Springs to Life”^[1] reported on the first case known to me that dealt with the issue whether a debtor in a pending Chapter 11 case should be permitted to amend its petition to designate it as a case under Subchapter V,^[2] the new subchapter of Chapter 11 adopted by