The UAE has pioneered a new insolvency regime for individuals or natural persons with the issuance of the stand-alone Insolvency Law No. 19 of 2019 (Insolvency Law), which has come to effect as of 30 November 2019.
The Insolvency Law is intended to provide sufficient protections to natural or civil persons who are facing financial distress and are unable to settle their debts, unlike the UAE Bankruptcy Law which regulates commercial companies and individuals considered as traders under the Commercial Transactions Code.
In re Markus, 607 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019) [click for opinion]
This week we bring you part II of Esin Attorney Partnership’s report on the newly adopted Provisional Article and the effect on financial restructuring and NPL reform in Turkey. Last week’s post is available here. In this post they provide additional insight into the newly adopted legislation and discuss their recommended actions on the legal front.
1) Financial Restructuring Considerations
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?
This week’s TGIF considers Tai-Soo Suk v Hanjin Shopping Co Ltd [2016] FCA 1404 in which the Court was required to determine the scope of a stay arising under the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross Border Insolvency.
BACKGROUND
A Korean shipping company was subject to ‘rehabilitation’ proceedings in Korea. Rehabilitation proceedings seek to ‘rehabilitate’ insolvent debtors by restructuring their debt pursuant to a rehabilitation plan approved by the creditors and the Rehabilitation Court.
This week’s TGIF considers the case of Compton v Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCAFC 106, where the Court exercised its power to “go behind” a judgment upon which a petitioning creditor relied as proof of a debt that was owed.
WHAT HAPPENED?
This week’s TGIF considers the case of Brandon Industries (Vic) Pty Ltd v Locker Pty Ltd [2016] VSC 373 where the Court dismissed an application to set aside a statutory demand due to the applicant’s failure to establish a genuine dispute or offsetting claim pursuant to section 459H of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).
BACKGROUND
This week’s TGIF considers the most recent decision in a line of cases which hold that the provisions of the Code of Banking Practice may be incorporated into loan agreements, as well as guarantees given by individuals.
BACKGROUND
WHAT HAPPENED?
Rahan Constructions Pty Ltd (Rahan) was contracted to undertake commercial construction and other works in about April 2012. On or about this date, Rahan entered into a credit account with Asset Flooring Pty Ltd (Asset Flooring). Rahan’s obligations under this credit account were personally guaranteed by the respondent, Mr North.
On 30 July 2013, Rahan was wound up by order of the court and Asset Flooring sought to enforce the guarantee for the outstanding balance owing under the credit account.
In the decision Young, Jr (on behalf of debtor-in-possession of Buccaneer Energy Ltd) v Buccaneer Energy Ltd [2014] FCA 711, the Federal Court of Australia considered whether Chapter 11 proceedings under the United States Bankruptcy Code should be recognised as a foreign main proceeding under the Cross-Border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) (CBIA) and Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (Model Law).