Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.

La provisión con cargo a la masa como medida cautelar a favor de un acreedor contingente debe ser material

Auto de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona de 3 de abril de 2018

A provision out of assets available to creditors as injunctive relief for holder of contingent claim must actually be material

Decision by Barcelona Provincial Appellate Court on April 3, 2018

On March 14, 2018 the European Commission presented the Second Progress Report on the reduction of non-performing loans (“NPLs”). The report comprises a memo and a factsheet, whose versions in English can be obtained on the website of the European Commission, which also distributed a press release (English version).

El pasado 28 de febrero la Comisión Europea publicó el Borrador de Acuerdo sobre la retirada del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (“UE”).

On February 28 last the European Commission published the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”).

In Clark’s Crystal Springs Ranch, LLC v. Gugino (In re Clark), 692 Fed. Appx. 946, 2017 BL 240043 (9th Cir. July 12, 2017), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that: (i) the remedy of "substantive consolidation" is governed by federal bankruptcy law, not state law; and (ii) because the Bankruptcy Code does not expressly forbid the substantive consolidation of debtors and nondebtors, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), does not bar bankruptcy courts from ordering the remedy.

With its landmark ruling in Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Ams. v. Large Private Beneficial Owners (In re Tribune Co. Fraudulent Conveyance Litig.), 818 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2016) ("Tribune 1"), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that claims asserted by creditors of the Tribune Co. ("Tribune") seeking to avoid payments to shareholders during a 2007 leveraged buyout ("LBO") as constructive fraudulent transfers were preempted by the "safe harbor" under section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On June 9, 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals, in Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2016 BL 184648 (N.Y. June 9, 2016), reversed a lower court decision, consistent with the overwhelming majority of federal court decisions, that the common interest doctrine under New York law is not limited to communications made in connection with pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.

In In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., 540 B.R. 109 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015), the bankruptcy court ruled that, although a chapter 11 plan proposed by solvent debtors need not provide for the payment of postpetition interest on unsecured claims to render the claims unimpaired, the plan must provide that the court has the discretion to award such interest at an appropriate rate “under equitable principles.” The ruling highlights the important distinction between the allowance of a claim in bankruptcy and the permissible treatment of the claim under a chapter 11 plan.