With the increase in global trade and business, often involving complex corporate structures in multiple jurisdictions, we expect to see a significant increase in cross-border insolvency and restructuring matters in coming years. This is especially the case with rapid advancements in technology and digital change driving “borderless” transactions and investments in every industry.
New Amendment to the Israeli Insolvency Law – grant of the option for a stay of proceedings against a corporation for the purpose of approving a debt arrangement without the appointment of an external officeholder to replace the company’s management
On 4 March 2021, an amendment to the Israeli Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law (Amendment number 4 – Temporary Provisions – the New Coronavirus) 2021 (“Temporary Provisions”) was published. This Temporary Provisions will become effective on 18 March 2021.
The surprising emergence of COVID-19 in 2020 has caught many companies by a complete surprise. Boards of directors of companies, of every size and from each industry, who have just recently approved their budget for 2020, have fallen into a new reality – suspension and, occasionally, complete stop, of business activity. The economic effect of the deadly virus is yet to be fully realized, however it is safe to assume that many companies and business entities who suffer liquidity issues during the crisis, may face insolvency or quasi-insolvency proceedings.
Client Update
The Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law, 2018
On March 5, 2018 the Israeli parliament passed the Insolvency and Rehabilitation Law, 2018 (the "Law"). The Law establishes, for the first time, a modern and consolidated set of insolvency laws for individuals and corporations in Israel. In addition to the codification and consolidation of existing insolvency and rehabilitation rules from multiple sources, the Law makes a number of changes to these existing rules in Israel.
Set out below are some of the key elements of this important new Law.
(Bankr. S.D. Ind. Dec. 4, 2017)
The bankruptcy court grants the motion to dismiss, finding the defendant’s security interest in the debtor’s assets, including its inventory, has priority over the plaintiff’s reclamation rights. The plaintiff sold goods to the debtor up to the petition date and sought either return of the goods delivered within the reclamation period or recovery of the proceeds from the sale of such goods. Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 546(c), the Court finds the reclamation rights are subordinate and the complaint should be dismissed. Opinion below.
(B.A.P. 6th Cir. Nov. 28, 2017)
The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. affirms the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of the Chapter 12 bankruptcy case. The court finds that the bankruptcy court failed to give the debtor proper notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the dismissal. However, the violation of due process was harmless error. The delay in filing a confirmable plan and continuing loss to the estate warranted the dismissal. Opinion below.
Judge: Preston
Attorney for Appellant: Heather McKeever