Under long-established common law, loans must be paid only upon maturity, not before. This "perfect tender in time" rule is the default rule in a number of jurisdictions. Many indentures and credit agreements therefore either bar prepayments altogether with "no call" provisions or permit prepayments with "make whole" provisions that require the payment of a specified premium to make up for the loss of future income.

The Croatian Consumer Bankruptcy Act (Zakon o stečaju potrošača; "ZSP")[1], which entered into force on 1 January 2016, for the first time introduces the legal concept of consumer bankruptcy into the legal system.

The Hungarian Ministry of Justice acknowledged the recent criticism aimed at the difficulties regarding the enforcement of monetary claims in the country and plans to amend the relevant laws to make creditors' lives easier. As currently envisaged, these amendments will in the near future change such fundamental laws as the Civil Code, the act on court enforcement, and the act on insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings. This article provides a summary of the envisaged amendments.
 
Civil Code

Legal Status  

The recently adopted Croatian Bankruptcy Act ("SZ")[1] sets out a new integrated pre-bankruptcy and bankruptcy regime. SZ has entirely replaced the previous bankruptcy act that was in force for 18 years, as well as provisions regulating pre-bankruptcy settlement proceedings prescribed under the Act on Financial Operations and Pre-bankruptcy Settlement

The Hungarian Parliament has adopted a new legal regime setting out debt settlement procedures for private individuals.  The act will enter into force on 1 September 2015, and will have a huge impact on the business of banks and financial undertakings in Hungary.

The Bulgarian Corporate Commercial Bank ("CCB")’s insolvency has resulted in a variety of changes to the Bulgarian banking legislation. Lifting of bank secrecy in cases of bank insolvency is the newest addition to the pile of governmental attempts at accountability and transparency stemming from the CCB affair.  

In the past decade, Chapter 11 practice has witnessed the rise of a new phenomenon: structured dismissals.¹ Broadly speaking, the term structured dismissal is an umbrella term for a dismissal order that includes additional bells and whistles, such as releases, protocols for claims administration or provisions permitting the gifting of assets to junior stakeholders. Like a Chapter 11 plan, a structured dismissal often identifies how proceeds are to be distributed while retaining jurisdiction in the bankruptcy court for claims administration and other specified matters.

On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif.¹ The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the Court’s highly controversial decision in Stern v.

In a May 4, 2015, decision, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected secured lenders’ appeals of a controversial bankruptcy court decision confirming the Chapter 11 plan of reorganization of MPM Silicones, LLC (also known as “Momentive”). The district court opinion, by Judge Vincent Briccetti, affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision that Momentive’s senior secured lenders could be “crammed down” at a below-market interest rate, without payment of a make-whole premium.