On 7 December 2022, the European Commission published a draft directive aimed at harmonizing certain aspects of insolvency law. The intention behind this directive is to mandate the inclusion of "pre-pack proceedings" in national insolvency laws across the European Union ("EU"). Although Türkiye is not a member of the EU and does not have specific rules for governing pre-pack insolvency sales, it does have procedures that are similar, if not an identical, to pre-pack proceedings.
In this article we will take a closer look at Türkiye's pre-pack-like institution.
The pre-pack insolvency sale is not currently regulated under Bulgarian law.
The Bulgarian law currently regulates the implementation of a recovery plan as a stage of opened insolvency proceedings, such recovery plan may provide for the sale of the business as a going concern, or the sale of a business as a going concern prior to opening insolvency proceedings. The recovery plan is described in more detail below.
In late 2022, the European Commission proposed a new Directive with a view to harmonise certain aspects of insolvency law. One of the most important innovations to be introduced in this Draft Directive is pre-pack proceedings.
What is a pre-pack sale?
Only a year ago, Slovakia transposed EU Directive 2019/2023 on preventive restructuring frameworks with an intention to reform insolvency proceedings and make them more effective.
The Galapagos Group has secured comprehensive affirmation of its 2019 debt restructuring (the “Restructuring”) from the English High Court. This decision is a significant step towards resolution of the highly contested restructuring, and provides market participants with further clarity and certainty when it comes to implementing lender-led transactions in future.
The Bulgarian government has introduced a new form of insolvency regime directed at merchants effective from 1 July 2023. In this new framework, a merchant is distinctly defined as an individual involved in business or practising a craft or a liberal profession. The criterion for the classification is the nature and scale of the operations, which should not necessitate conducting activities in a purely commercial manner.
Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge has caused countless disputes between pledgees and insolvency administrators. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.
Since the beginning of the 21st century and the first big wave of security enforcements in Germany, who holds the entitlement to enforce a share pledge between pledgees and insolvency administrators has caused countless disputes. This issue has now been resolved by a recently released judgment of the German Federal Supreme Court of 27 Oct 2022 (case no.: IX ZR 145/21), which has now held that pledged shares as well as pledges over certain other non-movable rights such as trademarks or patents can be enforced by the pledgee (only) and not by the administrator.