Two and a half years after the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, and on the verge of an economic recession, important developments are emerging in Spanish insolvency law.

Tras dos años y medio desde que empezara la crisis del COVID-19 y a las puertas de una recesión económica, surgen novedades importantes en el Derecho de la Insolvencia en España.

El RDL 16/2020 de 28 de abril y el Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal, que entrará en vigor el 1 de septiembre de 2020, han suscitado numerosas cuestiones, a la vista de la situación compleja que previsiblemente se avecina. Para abordar, desde un punto de vista práctico y ágil, las principales novedades que plantean, Bird & Bird celebró el pasado 30 de junio un webinar, bajo el título Principales novedades en materia preconcursal y concursal a raíz del RDL 16/2020 y el nuevo Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal.

As the Novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic continues to spread across the globe, people and businesses are facing unprecedented challenges, both immediate and strategic. Governments in various jurisdictions have announced various measures to try to alleviate the distress caused by the numerous issues that have arisen and continue to arise, particularly around cashflow and employees.

The Bankruptcy Code’s cramdown provisions are a powerful tool for debtors in the plan confirmation process. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code, a plan may be confirmed if, among other things, “at least one class of claims that is impaired under the plan has accepted the plan.” Once there is an impaired accepting class, and assuming certain requirements are met, the plan may then be “crammed down” on all other classes of impaired creditors that reject the plan and those creditors will be bound by the terms of a plan they rejected.

Recoupment is an equitable remedy – not expressly addressed in the Bankruptcy Code – that permits the offset of mutual debts arising out of the same transaction or occurrence. Unlike typical setoff, if recoupment applies, prepetition debts can be set off against postpetition debts. A recent decision from the Delaware bankruptcy court demonstrates that the availability of recoupment often depends on how the court defines the contours of the “same transaction or occurrence” requirement.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently faced a question of first impression: whether an allowed postpetition administrative expense claim can be used to set off preference liability. In concluding that it can, the court took a closer look at the nature of a preference claim.

Facts and Arguments

Courts have applied various standards for determining when a “claim” arises for the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, particularly in the tort context. A recent decision from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania illustrates that the standard may differ depending on whether the claim in question is a creditor’s claim against the debtor’s estate or a debtor’s claim against a third-party.

Practitioners generally identify “excusable neglect” as the standard that bankruptcy courts apply in determining whether to allow a creditor’s untimely proof of claim. A creditor who lets the bar date pass finds itself in the undesirable position of having to persuade the bankruptcy court that its neglect to file a timely proof of claim was excusable.