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)
In most bankruptcies, the company decides to file for relief. In involuntary bankruptcies, creditors force the company into bankruptcy. Involuntary petitions are an extreme remedy, and therefore the requirements and standards to meet for filing such petitions are strictly construed and applied. If creditors meet the requirements under the Bankruptcy Code for filing an involuntary petition, it can serve as a powerful tool to use against a debtor.
Key Issues
Unlike traditional Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, sometimes called "free fall" cases, where a debtor files for bankruptcy and determines its path out of bankruptcy over the course of the following months, some debtors enter into bankruptcy with a plan entirely (or mostly) drafted, with an emergence strategy already completed. In these cases, debtors enter bankruptcy with pre-packaged plans or pre-negotiated plans (sometimes called pre-arranged plans) ready to file on or just after their petition date.
In a bankruptcy case, a preference action1 is often asserted pursuant to Section 547 of the Bankruptcy Code against a creditor to claw back funds paid to the creditor in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy. While the most common defenses to a preference action are the ordinary course of business defense2, the new value defense3, and the contemporaneous exchange for new value defense4, there are other defenses that a savvy creditor should consider to reduce or even eliminate preference liability.
Key Issues