Proceedings from the Courts’ seminar on the homologation of refinancing agreements clarify some material uncertainties.

Background

The Spanish Congress has approved important amendments into the so-called Spanish scheme of arrangements, to facilitate Spanish company refinancings.

The Spanish Council of Ministers has approved the Royal Decree Law 24/2012 (the RDL 24/2012), for the restructuring and termination of Spanish credit entities. This RDL entered into force on 31 August 2012.

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).

In line with the trend of the first reform to the Spanish Insolvency Act of 2003 carried out on March 2009 (the 2009 Reform), new amendments to the Spanish Insolvency Act (the SIA) were approved on 4 October 2011 (the Amendment). This Amendment will enter into force on 1 January 2012.

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.