Fraudulent debtors are trying to use a disputable interpretation of Article 37, para 4 of the Special Pledges Act on the outcome of enforcement over a special pledge against the rights of secured mortgage creditors.
The Bulgarian legislator is notorious for leaving gaps in enacted legislation. Often such legal gaps combined with inexperience, or even worse – corruption of judges, lead to questionable judgments being handed down. Several of these judgments have put mortgage creditors at risk of losing their collateral in the past year.
In December 2013, the Bank of Slovenia adopted exceptional measures resulting in the annulment of financial instruments held by shareholders and subordinated bondholders for the purpose of burden-sharing in rescuing five Slovenian banks.1 In its decision of 19 July 2016, the European Court of Justice confirmed that such burden-sharing is not contrary to EU law; however, the Slovenian public remains divided.
Like the wild prairie rose that punctuates the North Dakota plains, the issue of whether a debtor can reject its midstream agreements is back after a brief period of dormancy. In Hot Topics in Oil and Gas Restructurings, Volume 3, we described how the U.S.
Some term loans allow borrowers to redeem debt. But to protect a lender’s expected yield, such loans often impose a “make-whole premium” on redemption. That is, they require compensation to the lender for the borrower’s premature termination of interest payments.
Since the European Commission adopted the recommendation on restructuring and second chance in 2014, it has been working on the evaluation of its initiative and the introduction of a European legal framework. In 2015 the Capital Markets Union Action Plan included the announcement of a legislative initiative on early restructuring and second chance. Finally, on 22 November 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a European Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks and a second chance for entrepreneurs.
A Delaware bankruptcy court has joined what appears to be a recent trend toward invalidating limited liability company operating agreement provisions that effectively afford lenders veto power over the LLC’s authority to file for bankruptcy protection; the court found one such provision void as contrary to federal public policy. In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 16-11247 (KJC) (D.I. 69), 2016 W.L. ___________ (Bankr. D. Del. June 3, 2016).
Yes, Gathering Agreements Can Be Rejected as Executory Contracts (At Least Under One Court’s Interpretation of Texas Law)
A Chicago bankruptcy court declined to dismiss the Chapter 11 case of a “bankruptcy remote” limited liability company even though the debtor failed to obtain the unanimous consent of its members as required by its operating agreement. See In re Lake Mich. Beach Pottawattamie Resort, LLC, Case No. 15bk42427, 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 1107 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. April 5, 2016).
The right to set-off claims and obligations in insolvency proceedings is an important tool for creditors in order to protect themselves against the insolvency risk of a contractual counterparty. This article gives a short overview of the rules for set-off in insolvency proceedings in Austria and certain CEE jurisdictions not taking into account special provisions for close-out netting and similar transactions.
Austria
Set-off in insolvency proceedings
Challenges, Risks and New Developments in the Distressed Oil & Gas Industry MARK A. PLATT, Partner 214 932 6433 | [email protected] Dallas, TX JOHN H. THOMPSON, Partner 202 857 2474 | [email protected] Washington, DC The authors thank the following colleagues for their assistance with this material: Courtney A.