2018 yazındaki kur şokuyla, "finansal yapılandırma" kavramı hayatımıza girdi.Borçlu şirketin mali yapısının elden geçirilip, mali stratejisinin tekrar belirlenmesi olarak tanımlanabilecek finansal yapılandırma; bir anda finansal kuruluşlarımızın en büyük gündemi haline geldi. İlgili kurumlarımız hemen müdahale edip, yapılandırma için yasal altyapıyı oluşturma yönünde çalışmaya başladı.

The concept of "financial restructuring" was introduced in Turkey following the country's currency crisis in the summer of 2018. Financial restructuring, defined as revising a debtor's financial structure and redetermining its financial strategy, became the major agenda of Turkish financial institutions. Regulators intervened immediately and began working to form the legal infrastructure for restructuring.

The US Supreme Court has reversed the First Circuit's ruling in Mission Products (Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology, LLC), 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)), thereby allowing the trademark licensee in that case to continue using the licensed trademark despite the debtor trademark licensor's rejection of the underlying trademark agreement in its bankruptcy case.

The US Supreme Court has reversed the First Circuit’s ruling in Mission Products (Mission Prod. Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC (In re Tempnology, LLC), 879 F.3d 389 (1st Cir. 2018)), thereby allowing the trademark licensee in that case to continue using the licensed trademark despite the debtor trademark licensor’s rejection of the underlying trademark agreement in its bankruptcy case.

The Code

On 21 October 2019 the Bankruptcy Code of Ukraine shall come into legal force ("Code"). The rules on operation of the electronic trade system within bankruptcy proceedings shall become effective earlier, on 21 July 2019.

The Code amends the bankruptcy procedure of legal entities and introduces the bankruptcy procedure for individuals (which was not previously applicable in Ukraine).

New Provisions

The most significant changes are the following:

In a prior blog post, “Making Sense of The Circuit Split on the Enforcement of Make-Whole Provisions in Bankruptcy,” we discussed the circuit split on the enforcement of a make-whole premium triggered by a bankruptcy petition. Shortly after that post was published, the U.S.

The Prime Minister of Vietnam recently issued Decision No. 242, approving Vietnam's Restructuring Plan of the insurance business market until 2020, oriented towards 2025 (Plan) following the final proposal of the Ministry of Finance (MOF)'s Insurance Supervisory Authority of Vietnam.1

When a plaintiff obtains a judgment from the court, that party is normally precluded from starting another lawsuit seeking the same judgment debt from the defendant.

There is now a divergence between New South Wales and Victorian authority on whether a company in liquidation may make a claim under Security of Payment legislation. The common law position in NSW is now that a company in liquidation can bring a Security of Payment claim. This decision will be rendered somewhat academic in NSW following enactment of legislation to come into force on a (currently unspecified) date in 2019 which has the effect of overriding this decision.

The enforcement of a lender’s claim for a make-whole premium in a chapter 11 case has created significant controversy among legal practitioners and the courts. Notably, the three circuit courts of appeal that have addressed make-whole claims, i.e. the Second, Third and Fifth Circuits, have issued conflicting decisions on the nature of these claims and their allowance under the Bankruptcy Code. In this post we provide a brief summary of make-whole premiums and address the controversy among the circuits.