The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).

The Ministry of Commerce issued a Communiqué on 15 September 2018 ("Communiqué") setting out the principles and procedures pertaining to the application of Article 376 of the Turkish Commercial Code ("TCC"). In brief, Article 376 regulates the measures to be adopted by joint stock companies and limited liability companies (for the purposes of this article, each a "company") in cases of loss of capital or insolvency.

On June 20, 2018, Judge Kevin J. Carey of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware sustained an objection to a proof of claim filed by a postpetition debt purchaser premised on anti-assignment clauses contained in transferred promissory notes. In re Woodbridge Group of Companies, LLC, et al., No. 17-12560, at *14 (jointly administered) (Bankr. D. Del. Jun. 20, 2018).

Summary

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut recently examined a question at the heart of an existing circuit split regarding the consequences of trademark license rejection in bankruptcy: can a trademark licensee retain the use of a licensed trademark post-rejection? In re SIMA International, Inc., 2018 WL 2293705 (Bankr. D. Conn. May 17, 2018).

Introduction

Law No 7101 on Amendments to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and Other Laws (“Law No 7101”) has been published in the Official Gazette dated 15 March 2018. Law No 7101 i) abolishes the postponement of bankruptcy procedures, ii) introduces a new composition procedure for insolvent companies and iii) improves secured creditors’ rights in bankruptcy.

Lifting of Postponement of Bankruptcy

On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

On 21 July 2017, a draft bill on the protection of over-indebted natural persons was submitted to the Bulgarian Parliament (the “Bill”). The Bill introduces a new legal framework to address personal over-indebtedness and to protect indebted persons from a lifetime of indebtedness while ensuring a fair satisfaction of creditors.