Fulltext Search

1. Nature of process 

Chapter 11 used to effect operational restructuring, deleverage balance sheet, and/or commence asset sale of the business as a going concern

Insolvency Act process primarily used to effect a pre-packaged sale of the business or assets effected by administrators (i.e. external qualified appointees).

The Personal Insolvency Act 2012 was enacted with the aim of throwing a lifeline to debtors, many of whom may be in arrears on mortgage loans secured against their principal private residence.

I. DEFINITIONS

"Banking Law" means the Banking Law of Turkey No. 5411.

"BRSA" means the Banking Regulatory and Supervisory Authority of Turkey.

"Creditors" means Turkish banks, financial leasing companies, factoring companies and financing companies and Foreign Credit Institutions and International Organizations.

Recent Development

The Financial Restructuring Framework Agreement ("PreviousFA") drafted by the Banks Association of Turkey was revised to be divided into two separate framework agreements for large scale (the "Large Scale FA") and small-scale (the "Small Scale FA") debtors.

What's New?

“To achieve great things, two things are needed: a plan, and not quite enough time.” – Leonard Bernstein

To paraphrase, great things happen when there is a plan and a deadline.

Examinership is one of Ireland’s key rescue processes for insolvent companies. It has been used successfully in very many cases since its introduction almost 20 years ago.

Crucially, it encompasses a deadline with no flexibility.

100 days

Less than an hour after an oxygen tank exploded on Apollo 13, mission control told the crew to isolate a small tank, containing 3.9 pounds of oxygen.[1] Days later, that tank provided the oxygen to keep the crew alive while landing back on Earth.

If they had left that tank for even another hour the oxygen in it would have been almost gone.

The recent publication of the Courts Service Annual Report 2018 highlighted on-going economic and societal changes by way of hard data. In his Foreword to the Report, Chief Justice Frank Clarke references our digital age, noting that “people are used to round-the-clock online access to services”. He adds that the courts “must deal with the twin challenge of facilitating such access while at the same time ensuring that the court process is secure and that cases are allocated the time and consideration they require”.

The default setting for the hearing of many contested debt recovery and security enforcement cases is by way of affidavit evidence, particularly in the High Court[1]. The creditor swears an affidavit setting out the reasons why it maintains the court should rule in its favour. Certain documents can be presented as exhibits that back up its case such as a contract.

It is now well documented that many owners’ management companies are facing the prospect of litigating to recover the cost of remedial works for defective developments or passing the cost onto the owners themselves. Given the passage of time since the construction of the developments and the insolvency of many of the developers and contractors involved in those projects following the financial crisis, management companies often face an uphill battle to recover damages.

The appointment of a receiver by way of equitable execution has generally been considered a “remedy of last resort”[1] and, for over a hundred years, courts have expressed differing views as to when they could appoint such a receiver.