Insolvency proceedings and avoidance actions play a significant role in safeguarding creditors' interests and maximising the insolvency estate in Türkiye. The European Commission's Proposal for a Directive (COM (2022)702) aims to harmonise contestation rights in insolvency across EU member states. Although Türkiye is not an EU member states, Türkiye has similar avoidance actions regulated under its own insolvency legislation, the Turkish Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law (EBL).
Overview
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a draft directive aimed at harmonizing certain aspects of insolvency law. The intention behind this directive is to mandate the inclusion of "pre-pack proceedings" in national insolvency laws across the European Union ("EU"). Although Türkiye is not a member of the EU and does not have specific rules for governing pre-pack insolvency sales, it does have procedures that are similar, if not an identical, to pre-pack proceedings.
In this article we will take a closer look at Türkiye's pre-pack-like institution.
On 20 December 2020, Turkey enacted Presidential Decision No. 3433, which extends the period for applying and making payments vis-à-vis new restructuring regime on receivables contained in the Law on Restructuring of Certain Receivables and Amending Certain Laws No 7256 (“Restructuring Law”), which came into force 17 November last year.
On 17 November 2020, Turkey enacted the Law on Restructuring of Certain Receivables and Amendment of Certain Laws No 7256, which allows the restructuring of certain public receivables and introduces several amendments to the tax legislation.
Introduction
Law No 7101 on Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and Other Laws (“Law No 7101”) has been published in the Official Gazette dated 15 March 2018. Law No 7101 i) abolishes the postponement of bankruptcy procedures, ii) introduces a new composition procedure for insolvent companies and iii) improves secured creditors’ rights in bankruptcy.
Lifting of Postponement of Bankruptcy
“[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.