Am 4. Februar 2025 wurde der neueste Entwurf des geänderten Konkursgesetzes („Entwurf“) vom Obersten Volksgerichtshof („SPC“) zur öffentlichen Stellungnahme veröffentlicht. Der Entwurf soll das geltende Konkursgesetz Nr. 51/2014/QH13 vom 19. Juni 2014 („Konkursgesetz 2014“) ersetzen und führt mehrere wesentliche Änderungen ein, die sich auf die Konkursverfahren auswirken können, die auf der Umsetzung des Konkursgesetzes 2014 ab seinem Inkrafttreten bis heute basieren. Die erste Frist für öffentliche Stellungnahmen läuft bis zum 25.

Le 4 février 2025, le dernier projet de loi amendée sur la faillite (« le Projet de loi ») a été publié par la Cour populaire suprême (« CPS ») pour consultation publique. Le Projet de loi est censé remplacer la loi actuelle sur la faillite n°51/2014/QH13 du 19 juin 2024 (« Loi sur la faillite de 2014 ») et introduit plusieurs changements significatifs qui pourraient impacter les procédures de faillite, se basant sur la mise en œuvre de la Loi sur la faillite de 2014 depuis son entrée en vigueur.

On 4 February 2025, the latest Draft of the Amended Law on Bankruptcy (“Draft”) was published by the People’s Supreme Court (“SPC”) for public comments. The Draft is prepared to supersede the current Law on Law on Bankruptcy No. 51/2014/QH13 dated 19 June 2014 (“Bankruptcy Law 2014”) and introduces several significant changes that may impact the bankruptcy procedures based on the implementation of the Bankruptcy Law 2014 from its effective date until now.

Two recent cases out of the Third Circuit and the Southern District of New York highlight some of the developing formulas US courts are using when engaging with foreign debtors. In a case out of the Third Circuit, Vertivv. Wayne Burt, the court expanded on factors to be considered when deciding whether international comity requires the dismissal of US civil claims that impact foreign insolvency proceedings.

When a majority of a company’s board approves a tender offer in good faith, can it still be avoided as an actually fraudulent transfer? Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, holding that the fraudulent intent of a corporation’s CEO who was a board member and exercised control over the board can be imputed to the corporation, even if he was the sole actor with fraudulent intent.

Background

Recently, in In re Moon Group Inc., a bankruptcy court said no, but the district court, which has agreed to review the decision on an interlocutory appeal, seems far less sure.

Yes, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in the case of CII Parent, Inc., cementing the advice routinely given by bankruptcy counsel to borrowers in default. We always counsel borrower clients in default of the risk associated with lenders taking unilateral actions pre-filing, stripping debtors of valuable options and assets. Thus, we normally recommend to always obtain a forbearance and undertake the preparations required to file a bankruptcy petition immediately upon forbearance termination, although whether or not to file depends on variety of factors that should be considered.

The Second Circuit recently held that a non-party to an assumed executory contract is not entitled to a cure payment (although it may be so entitled if is a third-party beneficiary of the contract). The result would have seemed obvious to bankruptcy practitioners. So, what in the world made the party pursuing payment take this to the Second Circuit? Well, surprisingly, as the Second Circuit decision shows, the answer is not found in the plain text of the Bankruptcy Code. And while it was argued prior to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S.

A mortgage loan repurchase facility (more casually referred to as a "repo") is a financing structure commonly utilized to finance mortgage loans. These facilities are utilized by both residential and commercial mortgage loan originators and aggregators to finance mortgage loans that they originate or acquire. The structure is favored by liquidity providers in the mortgage loan finance arena due to its preferential "safe harbor" treatment under the United States Bankruptcy Code (the "Bankruptcy Code"), as further described below.

Lenders often attempt to limit what a borrower can do outside the ordinary course of business by negotiating contractual protections. Some of these provisions are designed to make the borrowers bankruptcy remote by, for example, requiring the borrower’s Board to include an independent director whose consent is required for a bankruptcy filing. Others, as was the case we discuss here, however, go further by including contractual rights that limit a borrower’s ability to file for bankruptcy without the lender’s consent.