ECJ, Sixth Chamber, Judgment of 28 January 2015.

The judgment resolves the prejudicial question submitted by a Mercantile Court concerning the maintenance of workers’ rights in the event of the transfer of companies or part of them, and branches of business.

One of the blocks of Royal Decree-Law 1/2015, dated 27 February (hereinafter, the “RDL”) envisages the implementation of urgent measures  to reduce the financial burden, introducing amendments mainly in the Insolvency Act, in Royal Decree-Law 6/2012, dated 9 March, concerning urgent measures to protect mortgage debtors without resources, and in Law 1/2013, dated 14 May, concerning measures to strengthen the protection of mortgage debtors, the restructuring of debt and low-income lease.

The Royal Decree-Law 1/2015 dated February 27, 2015 (the “RDL”) seeks to implement urgent measures to, among other things, reduce individual debtors’ financial burden.

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.

Just six months after the last reform of the Law on Insolvency (Royal Decree-Law No. 4/2014 of 7 March) the Council of Ministers has promulgated a new amendment of the law with a view to facilitating, as far as possible, the continuity of financially viable businesses that become involved in insolvency proceedings.

These changes have been introduced by way of Royal Decree-Law No. 11/2014 of 5 September 2014 (the “Royal Decree-Law”).

The recently-approved Royal Decree Law 4/2014 (RDL), dated March 7 and published March 8 in the Official State Gazette (BOE), has the main goal of addressing measures to ensure the feasible restructuring of corporate debt, encouraging a relief of financial burdens for companies which, despite high debt levels, are still feasible from an operational viewpoint.

Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities  against another party (“Party Two”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on July 30, 2013, that a reorganized Chapter 11 debtor could reopen its closed case, enabling the debtor assignee to enforce a purchase option in a real property lease despite the lease’s “anti-assignment provisions.” In re Lazy Days’ RV Center Inc., 2013 WL 3886735, *5 (3d Cir. July 30, 2013).

Cramdown Plan Stays Suits Against Corporate Parent

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on March 1, 2013, that a bankruptcy court had not erred in applying a prime plus 1.75 percent interest rate to a secured lender’s $39 million claim under a "cramdown" plan of reorganization. Wells Fargo Bank N.A v. Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC (In the Matter of Texas Grand Prairie Hotel Realty, LLC), __ F.3d __, 2013 WL 776317 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2013).