The sale of portfolios of non-performing loans (NPLs) in Bulgaria is once again a hot topic. Lenders expect the percentage of work-out exposures to increase as the government's various stimulus packages come to an end. However, following a multitude of successful portfolio NPL sales in the years prior to COVID-19, more and more international investors are expressing interest in the local market.

What does this mean for NPL portfolio sales in Bulgaria?

There are several factors that will play a major role in the future of NPL portfolio sales in Bulgaria:

On January 12, 2021, the Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) settled its first civil action for alleged fraud against the Paycheck Protection Program (the “PPP”) – the primary lending program under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act for small businesses negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

On 20 December 2020, Turkey enacted Presidential Decision No. 3433, which extends the period for applying and making payments vis-à-vis new restructuring regime on receivables contained in the Law on Restructuring of Certain Receivables and Amending Certain Laws No 7256 (“Restructuring Law”), which came into force 17 November last year.

Over the past four years, midstream firms have struggled to adapt their long-standing practices and adjust their long-held expectations, which were fundamentally disrupted by the outcome of the landmark bankruptcy case, In re Sabine Oil & Gas. Midstream providers have since developed and relied on certain mechanisms and carefully drafted contract language in order to bind upstream companies and their successors in interest to obligations and restrictions contained of midstream agreements.

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 February, following oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, we wrote about the hugely important trademark law issue presented by this case, namely: If a bankrupt trademark licensor “rejects” an executory trademark license agreement, does that bankruptcy action terminate the licensee’s right to continue using the licensed trademark for the remaining term of the agreement?

Oral argument before the Supreme Court was held on February 20 in the much-watched and even more intensely discussed trademark dispute Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC. The case presents the difficult and multifaceted question: Does bankruptcy law insulate the right of a trademark licensee to continue using the licensed mark despite the bankrupt trademark licensor’s decision to “reject” the remaining term of the trademark license?

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.