La prolongada duración de los efectos de la pandemia COVID-19 sobre el tejido económico empresarial ha impulsado al Gobierno a extender en el tiempo algunas de las medidas en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia que se habían adoptado en el marco del Real Decreto-Ley 16/2020, de 28 de abril, posteriormente confirmadas en la Ley 3/2020, de 18 de septiembre.

Los efectos de la pandemia se están materializando en un incremento significativo de la deuda de consumidores y empresas. En este contexto, nuestra previsión es que, en los próximos años, las transacciones sobre deuda y activos tóxicos alcanzarán niveles muy elevados. Desde Garrigues, analizamos en este documento la situación y tendencias del mercado de deuda en Latinoamérica, España y Portugal, donde se percibe una clara tendencia a la sofisticación de este tipo de operaciones.

Pandemia COVID-19

In the wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a significant increase in debt held by both consumers and companies. Over the coming years, we expect to see a large number of debt and distressed asset deals. In this viewpoint, Garrigues provides in this documentan analysis of the debt market situation and trends in Latin America, Spain and Portugal, where there is a clear move toward greater sophistication in these deals.

COVID-19 pandemic

Analizamos la Ley 3/2020, de 18 de septiembre, de medidas procesales y organizativas para hacer frente al COVID-19 en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia para comprobar qué hay nuevo y qué ha cambiado esta nueva regulación respecto a la norma que la precedió, el RDL 16/2020 publicado durante la primera oleada de la pandemia.

On June 22, U.S. Circuit Judge Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Carranza that appeared, at first blush, to be a death blow to many debtors' ability to obtain Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act.

Como ya hiciera la Comisión Europea con su instrumento de liquidez para apoyo a la solvencia (Solvency Support Instrument) lanzado a finales de mayo y cuyos rasgos generales se describen aquí, el Gobierno de España ha creado, mediante el Real Decreto-ley 25/2020, un nuevo fondo para intentar prevenir las insolvencias

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has dealt a blow to debtors seeking Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”). In a decision entered on Monday, June 22, Judge Jerry Smith issued a short, three-page opinion in the case Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation v. Jovita Carranza (In re Hidalgo County Emergency Service Foundation) that could have long-lasting ramifications for many debtors, both in and outside of the Fifth Circuit.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security, or CARES, Act on March 27 was the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP. Under the program, small businesses (e.g., those with fewer than 500 employees) — and certain other businesses in specific industries — are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the program, including applying at least 75% of the funds received from the loans to payment of payroll expenses.

One of the landmark protections enacted by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) was the Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”). Under the PPP, small businesses (businesses with fewer than 500 employees) are eligible to receive loans that will be fully forgiven if utilized under the terms of the Program, including applying at least 75% of the loans to payroll. The loans may also be used for payment of interest on mortgages, rent, and utilities. The PPP loans are capped at $10 million for each small business.

Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de reestructuraciones e insolvencias.

La competencia para conocer de un ERTE por fuerza mayor derivada del COVID-19 corresponde a la jurisdicción laboral y no al juez del concurso

Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil de León, de 1 de abril de 2020