The general legal framework of existing Bulgarian insolvency law covers the core features recognised by the international insolvency community and takes account of EC Regula-tions and Directives. On the other hand, it does not always achieve the proper balance between the need to address the debtor’s financial difficulty as efficiently as possible and the interests of the creditors.

This article highlights some inefficiencies of the existing Bulgarian insolvency regime compared with international best practices.

Scope

On 6 January 2011, the European Commission (the “Commission”) published a consultation paper on the technical details of a possible EU framework for bank recovery and resolution (the “Consultation Paper”).1 The paper follows the communication from the Commission dated 20 October 2010 on an EU framework for crisis management in the financial sector (the “Communication”).2

A degree of certainty—for the time being—has been restored for participants in the commercial lending and debt trading markets who have been tracking the appeal of a controversial 2009 fraudulent transfer decision in the TOUSA, Inc. bankruptcy case.i On February 11, 2011, Judge Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida quashed (or nullified)ii the bankruptcy court’s decision, which ordered a group of lenders to disgorge $480 million received in connection with loans they extended to a joint venture involving TOUSA, Inc.

The Romanian legal framework on insolvency procedure has been consistently improved following the enactment of Insolvency Law no. 85 (Law 85), which entered into force on 21 July 2006.

Background

Introduction

On October 20 2010 insolvency proceedings were opened against A-TEC Industries AG, the Austrian holding company of industrial group A-TEC. With outstanding debt of around €650 million (including contingent claims), this insolvency is set to be the third-largest insolvency in Austria to date. Claims included around €300 million of bond debt (two convertible bonds and a corporate bond) issued by the company.

On January 24, 2011, the Honorable Dwight H. Williams, Jr. of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation’s (“FDIC”) request for relief from the automatic stay in the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.

In the current economic environment, many banks have lost significant capital and are under immense pressure, regulatory and otherwise, to recapitalize. Failure to recapitalize within time frames set by bank regulators can result in a bank’s seizure by its chartering authority and an FDIC receivership.

The FDIC is currently responding to one of the worst financial crises in the history of the nation’s banking system. Sheila Bair, Chairman of the FDIC, expects that 2010 “will be the high water mark for the banking crisis.”1 Just over the last two years, 268 banks have failed in the United States, which is nearly ten times the number of failed banks during the prior eight-year period.2

Bankruptcy-related developments during the first half of this year have sent shock waves
through the secured lending, derivative, and distressed debt trading communities. Several
notable decisions may significantly affect the way these entities operate and calculate risk,
and result in changes to standard documentation. Until recently, a proposed overhaul of
Bankruptcy Rule 2019 threatened to discourage distressed debt investors, including hedge
funds, from participating in bankruptcy proceedings as part of an ad hoc committee or group.

On May 17, the FDIC issued a proposed rule that would require certain insured depository institutions to submit a contingent resolution plan outlining how they could be separated from their parent structures and wound down in an orderly and timely manner. Institutions with assets greater than $10 billion that are subsidiaries of a holding company with total assets of more than $100 billion would be subject to this proposal.