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.
The pre-pack insolvency sale is not currently regulated under Bulgarian law.
The Bulgarian law currently regulates the implementation of a recovery plan as a stage of opened insolvency proceedings, such recovery plan may provide for the sale of the business as a going concern, or the sale of a business as a going concern prior to opening insolvency proceedings. The recovery plan is described in more detail below.
In late 2022, the European Commission proposed a new Directive with a view to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law. One of the most important innovations to be introduced in this Draft Directive is pre-pack proceedings.
What is a pre-pack sale?
Only a year ago, Slovakia transposed EU Directive 2019/2023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with an intention to reform insolvency proceedings and make them more effective.
The Bulgarian government has introduced a new form of insolvency regime directed at merchants effective from 1 July 2023. In this new framework, a merchant is distinctly defined as an individual involved in business or practising a craft or a liberal profession. The criterion for the classification is the nature and scale of the operations, which should not necessitate conducting activities in a purely commercial manner.
A previously unsettled aspect regarding the High Court’s (Court) jurisdiction to appoint an examiner to a company which is not formed or registered under the Companies Act 2014 (2014 Act), has been considered in the recent case of In the matter of MAC Interiors Ltd [2023] IEHC 395.
Earlier this year, a group of bondholders advised by William Fry and owed over US$175m by GTLK Europe DAC (GTLK Europe) and GTLK Europe Capital DAC (GTLK Capital) (collectively the Companies) petitioned for the winding up of the Companies on a number of grounds, including that they had failed to discharge scheduled interest payments and the accelerated debt constituted by the bonds following the interest payment defaults.
The High Court (Court) had to determine whether proceeds from two investments in the estate in the bankruptcy of Bernard McNamara (McNamara) were payable to NALM under its security package, or whether they should be retained in the estate in the bankruptcy of McNamara for the benefit of creditors generally (substantive question).
The High Court (Court) has found that it was not appropriate to make a winding up order in respect of a company under section 760(2) of the Companies Act 2014 (Act), where no party was nominated or consented to act as liquidator.
A recent Court of Appeal decision held that receivers are statutorily obliged to discharge preferential costs from assets available after deducting costs and expenses of a receiverirst line
The issue