In response to the proposal by the EU Commission on 7 December 2022 that an EU Directive be issued to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law, this article provides a look into one of the main topics of the draft directive – pre-pack reorganisation proceedings as regulated in Serbia, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, which are candidate countries for accession to the EU.
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council harmonising certain aspects of the insolvency law. The intention of this Directive Proposal is to make insolvency proceedings more predictable and efficient within the EU.
Most importantly, the Directive Proposal introduces a mandatory inclusion of a new restructuring instrument to Slovenian insolvency law: what is known as a ‘pre-pack proceeding’, which is a fast-track liquidation proceeding that:
On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a proposal for a directive for the harmonisation of certain aspects of insolvency laws across EU member states. One of the key elements of this proposal is the introduction of harmonised pre-pack proceedings aimed at increasing the efficiency of business sales in insolvency proceedings.
The Bottom Line
One feature commonly seen in commercial lending transactions is a waiver of the borrower’s authority to file for bankruptcy without the consent of the lender. While such “blocking” provisions are generally upheld where the equity interest holders are the parties with such rights, they are generally unenforceable as a matter of public policy when such protection is given to a creditor with no meaningful ownership interest in the corporate debtor.
Overview
When enacting the Bankruptcy Code, Congress sought to strike a balance amid the confluence of different — and often competing — interests held by debtors, secured creditors and various unsecured creditor constituencies (including landlords) through a framework of statutory protections. This has – at times – led to litigation over differing statutory interpretations as well as circuit splits as courts attempt to reconcile underlying policy goals with the less-than-clear language in various of the Code’s provisions.
Overview
Overview
Recently, in Shady Bird Lending, LLC v. The Source Hotel, LLC (In re The Source Hotel, LLC), Case No. 8:21-cv-00824-FLA (C.D. Ca. June 8, 2022), the Central District of California District Court adopted the majority view that a non-income producing property could be a “single asset real estate,” or SARE, debtor. The district court held that a hotel, which was not yet producing income, met the definition of a SARE.
Background
Overview
In Highland Capital Mgmt. v. Dondero (In re Highland Capital Mgmt.), Case No. 21-03007-sgj (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2021), the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas held that a debtor could not be compelled to abide by an arbitration clause in an agreement that was rejected pursuant to Section 365 of the Bankruptcy Code.
Background
Overview
In Hilal K. Homaidan v. Sallie Mae, Inc., Navient Solutions, LLC, Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Case No. 20-1981 (2d Cir. 2021), the Second Circuit affirmed the opinion of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York, which held that private student loans are not excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(8)(A)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Code, which excepts from discharge “an obligation to repay funds received as an educational benefit, scholarship, or stipend.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8)(A)(ii).
Background