New Amendment to the Israeli Insolvency Law – grant of the option for a stay of proceedings against a corporation for the purpose of approving a debt arrangement without the appointment of an external officeholder to replace the company’s management

On 4 March 2021, an amendment to the Israeli Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law (Amendment number 4 – Temporary Provisions – the New Coronavirus) 2021 (“Temporary Provisions”) was published. This Temporary Provisions will become effective on 18 March 2021.

The surprising emergence of COVID-19 in 2020 has caught many companies by a complete surprise. Boards of directors of companies, of every size and from each industry, who have just recently approved their budget for 2020, have fallen into a new reality – suspension and, occasionally, complete stop, of business activity. The economic effect of the deadly virus is yet to be fully realized, however it is safe to assume that many companies and business entities who suffer liquidity issues during the crisis, may face insolvency or quasi-insolvency proceedings.

Client Update

The Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law, 2018

On March 5, 2018 the Israeli parliament passed the Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law, 2018 (the "Law"). The Law establishes, for the first time, a modern and consolidated set of insolvency laws for individuals and corporations in Israel. In addition to the codification and consolidation of existing insolvency and rehabilitation rules from multiple sources, the Law makes a number of changes to these existing rules in Israel.

Set out below are some of the key elements of this important new Law.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued a noteworthy opinion for those whose work involves real estate mortgage conduit trusts (REMIC trusts) or utilization of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” provisions. In In re MCK Millennium Ctr. Parking, LLC,¹ Bankruptcy Judge Jacqueline P.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In In re Filene’s Basement, LLC,¹ the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware considered the rejection damages a landlord claimant was entitled to pursuant to Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code after the debtor rejected its lease as part of its reorganization plan.

Bankruptcy courts appear to be increasingly sending state law claims to the district court for final review, as illustrated by a recent decision from the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of Texas. In Gomez v. Lone Star National Bank (In re Saenz), Jose Gomez financed his acquisition of a restaurant from Humberto Saenz. When the restaurant failed, Gomez sued his lender and Saenz on various claims, but Saenz filed for bankruptcy protection. The lender then moved for summary judgment against Gomez’s claims for common-law fraud and negligence.