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.
This article is produced by CMS Holborn Asia, a Formal Law Alliance between CMS Singapore and Holborn Law LLC.
The insolvency systems for companies and other legal entities vary from country to country. The main purpose of insolvency legislation, however, is fundamentally the same worldwide. If there is important value in the business, we need to protect it in order for the company to continue as a viable business and pay creditors. If the liquidation value is higher than the operational value, jurisdictions have liquidation mechanisms that allow companies to efficiently exit the market and pay creditors through an ordered sale of assets.
In a turning point for Ukrainian bankruptcy law reform, on 18 October 2018 the Ukrainian parliament adopted the Code of Bankruptcy Proceedings, which will replace the existing Law on Restoring Solvency of Debtors or Recognition of Debtors’ Bankruptcy that has been in force since 1992.
The recent volatility experienced in Turkish financial markets and in particular the devaluation of Turkish lira have brought many borrowers to the brink of default. This has prompted the Turkish authorities to take action. Accordingly, the Banking Regulatory and Supervision Authority in Turkey (the “BRSA”) has published a new set of restructuring rules, the Regulation on the Restructuring of Debts Owed to the Financial Sector (the “Restructuring Regulation”), which came into force on 15 August 2018.
The Law Amending Certain Laws for the Purpose of Improvement of the Investment Environment, Law No: 6728 has been published in the Official Gazette dated 9 August 2016 and numbered 29796 (“Amending Law”). It amends several laws including the (i) Stamp Duty Law No: 488, (ii) Law of Fees No: 492, and (iii) provisions of the Turkish Commercial Code Law No: 6102 on the incorporation of entities. With these amendments, the Turkish government aims to reduce the cost of foreign direct investment in Turkey.
Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements
The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context. In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”
On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.
Following recall notices for its ignition switches in February 2014, General Motors, LLC (“New GM”) has been hit with at least 50 class actions and two individual suits in not less than 20 federal and two state courts asserting claims against New GM for defective vehicles and parts sold by Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”).
On April 17, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Judge Sean H. Lane issued an opinion in the Waterford Wedgwood bankruptcy discussing at length one of the defenses available to preference defendants. The opinion turns upon the scope of “ordinary business terms,” the objective prong of the ordinary course of business defense.