The general legal framework of existing Bulgarian insolvency law covers the core features recognised by the international insolvency community and takes account of EC Regula-tions and Directives. On the other hand, it does not always achieve the proper balance between the need to address the debtor’s financial difficulty as efficiently as possible and the interests of the creditors.

This article highlights some inefficiencies of the existing Bulgarian insolvency regime compared with international best practices.

Scope

The Romanian legal framework on insolvency procedure has been consistently improved following the enactment of Insolvency Law no. 85 (Law 85), which entered into force on 21 July 2006.

Background

Introduction

On October 20 2010 insolvency proceedings were opened against A-TEC Industries AG, the Austrian holding company of industrial group A-TEC. With outstanding debt of around €650 million (including contingent claims), this insolvency is set to be the third-largest insolvency in Austria to date. Claims included around €300 million of bond debt (two convertible bonds and a corporate bond) issued by the company.

On February 7, 2011, in In re DBSD North America, Inc.,1 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit released its opinion joining the Third Circuit in condemning socalled “gifting plans,” thus deepening the perceived circuit split with the First Circuit which has been interpreted as approving of gifting plans. In so doing, the Second Circuit relied on the U.S. Supreme Court cases of Bank of Am. Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. 203 N. LaSalle St. P’ship2 and Norwest Bank Worthington v.

The current "Great Recession," which began in late 2007 with a maelstrom in the debt capital markets, has necessitated a rethinking of the federal income tax rules governing debt restructurings. The harsh rules2 promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in reaction to the 1991 taxpayer-favorable decision in Cottage Savings v. Commissioner,3 have been inhibiting restructurings. Instead, rules that did not trigger adverse tax results have been needed to induce lenders and borrowers to restructure obligations that can no longer be paid according to their terms.

LLC members and other persons dealing with LLCs will be interested in a recent Florida Supreme Court case that was decided on June 24, 2010. The court’s decision in Olmstead v. FTC appears to eliminate part of the asset protection feature of single-member LLCs and calls into question the remedies available to creditors of members in multiple-member LLCs.

In a recent split decision, a 2-1 majority for the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a debtor’s plan of reorganization that proposes a sale of assets free and clear of liens is not necessarily required to allow creditors whose loans are secured by those assets to credit bid at the sale. The majority decision in In re Philadelphia Newspapers, LLC, Nos. 09-4266, 09-4349, 2010 WL 1006647 (3d Cir. Mar. 22, 2010), which follows a similar decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (see Bank of N.Y. Trust Co., NA v.

2006 FICA Refund Claims Due April 15, 2010

As the financial crisis unfolds, the impact on U.S. financial institutions of all sizes continues to grow. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) took over 140 failed banks in 2009 at a cost of $27.8 billion to the Deposit Insurance Fund, a new high since the end of the savings and loan crisis of the late 80s and early 90s. For 2010, the FDIC is preparing for even more bank failures, increasing its budget by 35 percent and adding more than 1,600 to its staff.

The recently passed federal appropriations bill provides a mechanism for certain terminated auto dealers to seek relief through arbitration. If the dealer succeeds in the arbitration process, the manufacturer is required to enter into a letter of intent for a sales and service agreement with that dealer.

Auto Dealers Eligible for Arbitration