On 1 September 2016, the Korean Court issued orders commencing rehabilitation proceedings for Hanjin and staying proceedings against it and its assets (Korean Orders).

The purpose of the Korean proceeding is to rehabilitate the insolvent debtor company, Hanjin, by restructuring its debts. The debts are restructured according to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Korean Court. The aim is to protect Hanjin while it trades out of its debt.

It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement.  However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?

It is a familiar scenario: a company is on the verge of bankruptcy, bound by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), and unable to negotiate a new agreement.  However, this time, an analysis of this distressed scenario prompted a new question: does it matter if the CBA is already expired, i.e., does the Bankruptcy Code distinguish between a CBA that expires pre-petition versus one that has not lapsed?