The Law Amending the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law and Certain Other Laws No. 7343 (“AmendmentLaw”), known as the 5th Judicial Reform Package, which entered into force upon publication in the Official Gazette (31675) dated November 30th, 2021, introduced several important changes to the Enforcement and Bankruptcy Law No. 2004 (“Law No. 2004”), as well as Turkish Civil Law No. 4721 and Child Protection Law No. 5395.
İCRA İFLAS HUKUKUNDA ÖNEMLİ DEĞİŞİKLİKLER
Beşinci yargı paketi olarak adlandırılan İcra ve İflas Kanunu ile Bazı Kanunlarda Değişiklik Yapılması Hakkındaki Kanun Teklifi, Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi tarafından kabul edilmiştir. Kanun, 30.11.2021 tarihinde Resmi Gazete’de yayımlanmış ve yayımıyla birlikte yürürlüğe girmiştir. 2004 sayılı İcra İflas Kanunu’nda (“İİK”) yapılan düzenlemeler ve yenilikler şu şekildedir:
SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY LAW
The proposal on the Law Regarding Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code and the Amendment of Certain Laws, which is also called the fifth judicial package, was accepted by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The Law was published in the Official Gazette on 30.11.2021 and entered into force with its publication. The regulations and innovations made in the Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Code No. 2004 (“DEBC”) are as follows:
A three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India (SC) in V. Nagarajan v. SKS Ispat and Power Ltd. & Others (judgment dated 22 October 2021 in Civil Appeal No. 3327 of 2020) dismissed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) which had dismissed an appeal against an order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal Chennai (NCLT) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) as barred by limitation.
Facts
Government of Montenegro enacted a Bill on amendments of the Bankruptcy Law, in an effort to make the bankruptcy proceedings more efficient and straightforward, but it also offers significant amendments to the provisions regulating bankruptcy administrators’ appointment and status.
In a decision that will likely impact bankruptcy proceedings around the country, the Supreme Court recently denied the petition for writ of certiorari of David Hargreaves, which challenged the equitable mootness doctrine.1 As a result, the concept of equitable mootness remains anything but moot.
Highlights
香港法院首次认可并协助在内地启动并由内地法院指定破产管理人的破产程序案件是Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 167。随着破产重整制度的最新发展，香港法院在 Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897案件中进一步加强跨境重整合作，夏利士法官亦首次认可内地的重整程序 (“裁决”)。
背景
在中国海南注册成立的海航集团有限公司 (“公司”) 是海航集团的控股公司。作为一家业务多元化的国内企业集团，海航集团投资组合涵盖航空、房地产、旅游和金融服务等领域。尽管它曾一度是世界上最活跃的投资集团之一，该集团在 2021 年因债务重整失败而宣布破产，陷入了危机。海南银行以公司资不抵债为由向海南省高级人民法院 (“海南法院”) 申请了破产重整。
根据《企业破产法》及最高人民法院的规定，海南法院于2021年2月10日颁发了重整命令 (“海南命令”)。管理人员，包括北京律师和海南省法制办公室的一名官员，被任命为清算管理人。同一命令规定公司集团的某些成员可以在管理人的监视权力下继续管理其资产和业务。
An emerging issue facing bankruptcy courts in subchapter V — small business reorganization cases[1] — is whether the 19 categories of debts listed in section 523(a) of the Bankruptcy Code are subject to discharge in a cramdown confirmation of a corporate debtor’s plan of reorganization.
The very first case that the Hong Kong Court recognised and granted assistance to bankruptcy administrators appointed by the Mainland Chinese courts in insolvency proceedings commenced in Mainland China in Re CEFC Shanghai International Group Limited [2020] HKCFI 167. Following the latest developments in the insolvency and restructuring regime, the Hong Kong Court has made further strides towards the enhanced cross-border restructuring cooperation in Re HNA Group Co Limited [2021] HKCFI 2897, in which the Honourable Mr.