No passado dia 1 de julho de 2017 entrou em vigor o Decreto-lei 79/2017 de 30 de junho de 2017 (“DL 79/2017”), que altera, entre outros, o Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas, alterando, nomeadamente, o regime jurídico do Procedimento Especial de Revitalização (“PER”) que fica agora reservado a empresas.
Destacamos ainda outras alterações relevantes introduzidas pelo DL 79/2017:
On 1 July 2017, Decree-law 79/2017, of 30 June 2017 (“DL 79/2017”), entered into force. This piece of legislation amends, most notably, the Insolvency and Recovery of Companies Code and the legal framework of the Special Revitalization Procedure (“SRP”), which is now reserved only to companies.
Other noteworthy amendments introduced by DL 79/2017 are as follows:
On 25 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree approving the Law on Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law (the Amendments).
The Amendments incorporate the definition of related parties to the debtor in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the Civil Code). The related parties include the persons described in Article 49-1.1 of the Civil Code as well as individuals dismissed from the debtor’s management bodies within one year prior to the beginning of bankruptcy.
On 25 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree approving the Law on Amendments to the Bankruptcy Law (the Amendments).
The Amendments incorporate the definition of related parties to the debtor in accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan (the Civil Code). The related parties include the persons described in Article 49-1.1 of the Civil Code as well as individuals dismissed from the debtor's management bodies within one year prior to the beginning of bankruptcy.
On 7 April 2017, the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan signed a decree (the Decree) approving significant amendments to the Law On Banks dated 16 January 2004 (the Amendments) and relating to local banks experiencing financial difficulties.
Financial Rehabilitation
“[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.