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.

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 22, 2017)

(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

(6th Cir. Nov. 14, 2017)

(Bankr. W.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2017)

The bankruptcy court grants the creditor’s motion for stay relief to proceed with a state court foreclosure action. The creditor had obtained an order granting stay relief in a prior bankruptcy filed by the debtor’s son, the owner of the property. The debtor’s life estate interest in the property does not prevent the foreclosure action from proceeding. Opinion below.

Judge: Lloyd

Attorney for Debtor: Mark H. Flener

Attorney for Creditor: Bradley S. Salyer

The Sixth Circuit affirms the B.A.P., holding the entry of summary judgment in favor of the creditors in the nondischargeability action was appropriate. The creditors obtained a default judgment against the debtor in Tennessee state court. The default judgment was on the merits and the doctrine of collateral estoppel applied. Opinion below.

Judge: Rogers

Appellant: Pro Se

Attorneys for Creditors: Keating, Muething & Klekamp, Joseph E. Lehnert, Brian P. Muething, Jason V. Stitt

(Bankr. E.D. Ky. Nov. 1, 2011)