In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

The fourth additional provision of the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) provides for homologation (court sanctioning) of a refinancing agreement signed by creditors representing at least 51 per cent of financial liabilities whilst meeting certain conditions set out in article 71 bis at the time of adoption of said agreement.

(Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil número 1 de San Sebastián, de 19 de noviembre de 2013).

Este auto afirma la competencia del Juzgado de lo mercantil de San Sebastián para declarar la apertura del concurso de la sociedad Fagormastercook SA con domicilio social en Wroclaw (Polonia). La concursada es filial de Fagor Electrodomésticos S. Coop., cuya solicitud de concurso había tenido entrada en el mismo juzgado, si bien en la fecha del auto estaba pendiente de declaración.

Presentación

El análisis de la Ley 9/2012, de 14 de noviembre, de Reestructuración y Resolución de Entidades de Crédito y de la aplicación de algunos de sus preceptos en supuestos con elementos internacionales exige partir de dos premisas:

The U.S. Supreme Court in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, ___ S. Ct. ___, 2012 WL 1912197 (May 29, 2012), held that a debtor may not confirm a chapter 11 "cramdown" plan that provides for the sale of collateral free and clear of existing liens, but does not permit a secured creditor to credit-bid at the sale. The unanimous ruling written by Justice Scalia (with Justice Kennedy recused) resolved a split among the Third, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits.

On December 12, 2011, the Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari in a case raising the question of whether a debtor's chapter 11 plan is confirmable when it proposes an auction sale of a secured creditor's assets free and clear of liens without permitting that creditor to "credit bid" its claims but instead provides the creditor with the "indubitable equivalent" of its secured claim. RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, No. 11-166 (cert. granted Dec. 12, 2011).

Earlier this year, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided in In re Lett that objections to a bankruptcy court’s approval of a cram-down chapter 11 plan on the basis of noncompliance with the “absolute priority rule” may be raised for the first time on appeal. The Eleventh Circuit ruled that “[a] bankruptcy court has an independent obligation to ensure that a proposed plan complies with [the] absolute priority rule before ‘cramming’ that plan down upon dissenting creditor classes,” whether or not stakeholders “formally” object on that basis.