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.
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.
Yeni Gelişme
Koronavirüs (COVID-19) salgın hastalığının Türkiye'de yayılmasını önlemek amacıyla hükümet tarafından alınan tedbirler kapsamında Cumhurbaşkanı tarafından İcra ve İflas Kanunu'nun ("İİK") "Fevkalade Hallerde Tatil" başlıklı 330. maddesinde kendisine verilen yetkiye dayanarak verilen "İcra ve İflas Takiplerinin Durdurulması Hakkında Karar", 22.3.2020 tarihinde yürürlüğe konmuştur.
Karar Ne Diyor?
1. Nature of process
Chapter 11 used to effect operational restructuring, deleverage balance sheet, and/or commence asset sale of the business as a going concern
Insolvency Act process primarily used to effect a pre-packaged sale of the business or assets effected by administrators (i.e. external qualified appointees).
I. DEFINITIONS
"Banking Law" means the Banking Law of Turkey No. 5411.
"BRSA" means the Banking Regulatory and Supervisory Authority of Turkey.
"Creditors" means Turkish banks, financial leasing companies, factoring companies and financing companies and Foreign Credit Institutions and International Organizations.
Recent Development
The Financial Restructuring Framework Agreement ("PreviousFA") drafted by the Banks Association of Turkey was revised to be divided into two separate framework agreements for large scale (the "Large Scale FA") and small-scale (the "Small Scale FA") debtors.
What's New?
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?
On July 19, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals entered a decision upholding the results of a foreclosure sale against a debtor’s allegation that the sale was a preference because the bankruptcy estate could have sold the property for a higher price. Veltre v. Fifth Third Bank (In re Veltre), Case No. 17-2889 (3d Cir. July 19, 2018).
(Excerpted from “Retail Bankruptcies – Protections for Landlords,” Practical Law Journal, May 2018, by Lars Fuller)
Due to increasing competition from online sellers, recent years have seen a dramatic uptick in Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings by multistate brick-and-mortar retailers – some that have dozens, or even hundreds, of storefronts. These bankruptcies create challenges for the commercial landlords that own the shopping centers, malls and other establishments that those retailers rented.