The Moldovan Parliament adopted a new insolvency law on 29 June 2012. The In-solvency Act No. 149 (Act No. 149), which will enter into force on 14 March 2013, is evolutionary rather than revolutionary, as its main goal appears to be the optimiza-tion of the existing insolvency procedures.

Following the new act’s entry into force, insolvency cases shall fall under the compe-tence of the court of appeal where the seat of the debtor is located. Also each such court of appeal shall hold a public register of insolvency cases.

Timing

On August 2, 2010, Maru E. Johansen, in her capacity as the foreign representative (the “Foreign Representative”)1 in respect of Mexican insolvency proceedings regarding Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. (“Mexicana”), filed a petition for recognition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”), commencing a case under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.2 Mexicana and its affiliates operate Mexicana Airlines, Mexico’s largest airline.

Mexicana Airlines has reported that it has filed for bankruptcy protection in Mexico and will seek to reorganize. What does this mean for aircraft lessors and other creditors of Mexicana Airlines?  

The Mexican Business Reorganization Act

With the enactment of the Ley de Concursos Mercantiles (the “LCM”) in 2000, Mexico took a dramatic step towards modernizing its bankruptcy and insolvency laws. Several years later, in 2007, Mexico took additional steps by enacting a number of reforms aimed to create or clarify the legal framework regarding various important topics that were novel in Mexico, including implementation of a process to obtain approval of pre-negotiated plans.  

In general, creditors in Montenegro may secure their claims by various types of security over debtors’ assets, such as pledge (zaloga), mortgage (hipoteka), suretyship (jemstvo), bills of exchange (menica), etc.

Introduction

It is often difficult to collect undisputed claims from foreign debtors. Questions arise such as the following:

Blog on The Hague Court of Appeal, 17 February 2015, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2015:281 (FGH Bank N.V. v. Aannemingsbedrijf Fraanje B.V.)

In a ruling dated 16 October 2015, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed the enforceability of security surplus arrangements in the event a security provider is declared bankrupt. In addition, the Dutch Supreme Court has confirmed that, unlike statutory recourse claims (regresrechten), contractual recourse claims can be construed in such a manner that they come into existence (as conditional claims) before payment by the guarantor of the debt owed by the debtor, after which they become unconditional.

In a judgment dated 13 October 2015 in proceedings between a bank and its client the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal ruled that the bank was allowed to terminate the credit agreement with the client on the grounds that the client had caused a reduction in the value of shares pledged to the bank.

Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal 13 October 2015 (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2015:8354)

Today, the draft bill on the continuity of companies II (Wet continuïteit ondernemingen II) went into public consultation. The bill is based on a proposal in 2013 by Ruud Hermans and Reinout Vriesendorp of De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek and was discussed with experts from stakeholders. The bill provides for a restructuring procedure inspired by international restructuring practices, in particular English scheme of arrangement and US Chapter 11 proceedings. The bill provides for one of the most significant amendments of the Dutch Bankruptcy Act in decades.