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

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.