Last year saw several important decisions relating to restructuring plans, including Petrofac (see our Law-Now: Saipem judgment: fair benefit sharing for all creditors) and Waldorf (see our Law-Now: Waldorf Plan Rejected: Court stresses fairness and good faith).
Pursuant to the amendment published in the Official Gazette dated 10 December 2025, No. 33103, the wording “1/1/2026” in Temporary Article 1 of the Communiqué on the Procedures and Principles Regarding the Implementation of Article 376 of the Turkish Commercial Code (the “Communiqué”) has been replaced with “1/1/2027”, and the amendment entered into force on the date of its publication.
In Nordic Power Partners P/S & Ors v Rio Alto Energia, Empreendimentos E Participacoes LTDA & Ors [2025] EWHC 2875 (Comm), the Commercial Court reconfirmed its willingness to grant interim relief to an energy investor in the context of international projects (here related to Brazil). Specifically, this decision provides an interesting insight into steps that can be taken to prevent funds being received by a party that may soon become insolvent (which risks creditors being left without a satisfactory remedy once a dispute is resolved).
On 3 December 2025, the Official Gazette published Law no. 202/2025 that amends and supplements Law no. 213/2015 on the Insureds Guarantee Fund (FGA) and Law no. 85/2014 on insolvency prevention and insolvency proceedings.
These amendments significantly recalibrate the institutional design, financing toolkit, and cross-border coordination of Romania’s insurance guarantee scheme, with particular emphasis on the handling of motor third party liability (MTPL) insurance claims and alignment with the EU framework introduced by Directive 2021/2118.
Der IDW S 16 ist da! Wie Unternehmen bestandsgefährdende Entwicklungen früher erkennen und Haftungsrisiken vermeiden – jetzt sind Frühwarnsysteme Pflicht.
Judge Parker of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas recently issued an order in the case of Hilltop SPV, LLC, granting debtor Hilltop SPV LLC’s (“Hilltop”) motion to reject a Gas Gathering Agreement (“GGA”) with counter-party Monarch Midstream, LLC (“Monarch”).[1] This decision allows Hilltop to reject the GGA while allowing Monarch to retain the covenants that run with the land post-rejection.
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 144 S. Ct. 2017 (June 27, 2024)
To encourage vendors and other creditors to continue doing business with financially distressed entities, the Bankruptcy Code includes various defenses to litigation brought by a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") seeking to avoid pre-bankruptcy payments to such entities. One of these defenses shields from avoidance transfers made to pay debts incurred in the ordinary course of business of the debtor and the transferee.
Mitigating risk of loss associated with a bankruptcy filing should be an element of any commercial transaction, especially if it involves a sale or license of intellectual property rights. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit provides a stark reminder of the consequences of when it is not. In In re Mallinckrodt PLC, 99 F.4th 617 (3d Cir.
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code's "safe harbor" preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings have been issued in bankruptcy cases addressing the scope of the provision, including its limitation to transactions involving "financial institutions" as transferors or transferees, its preemption of avoidance litigation that could have been commenced by or on behalf of creditors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, and its application to non-public transactions.