In vielen Branchen kann die Lieferkette eine Vielzahl von Unternehmen und Jurisdiktionen umfassen. Im derzeitigen Wirtschaftsklima ist es nicht ungewöhnlich, dass einzelne Lieferanten innerhalb dieser Lieferkette in finanzielle   Schwierigkeiten   geraten   oder ein Insolvenzverfahren beantragen.

In many industries, the supply chain can involve multiple suppliers and jurisdictions. In the current economic climate, it is not unusual for a supplier within the supply chain to encounter financial distress or even to enter into formal insolvency proceedings. This can have a significant impact on a company if its business depends on a distressed supplier and an alternative or additional supplier cannot be found (and production cannot be brought in house) or an alternative sourcing is not possible for other reasons, like part/raw material approval process, testing, customs etc.

In late August 2022, the Spanish Parliament passed the transposition into Spanish law of the Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of June 20th 2019, on Preventive Restructuring Frameworks. The draft of this new Act was subject to multiple amendments and created great local expectations (also considerable controversy). The text finally enacted in Law 16/2022 introduces major reforms in the insolvency field which we hereby depict.

Introduction of the so-called “Restructuring Plans”

The Spanish Parliament's extraordinary plenary session of August 25, 2022, has passed a law amending the recast Insolvency Act, which amendment will enter into force 20 days after it is published in Spain's Official State Gazette, the "BOE".

This new law, after suffering numerous amendments as a bill, establishes major changes in the area of insolvency, and it incorporates into the Spanish legal system the guidelines established by Directive (EU) 2019/1023 of the European Parliament and of the Council, dated June 20, 2019, on preventive restructuring frameworks.

The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

With the Act on the Temporary Suspension of the Insolvency Filing Obligation Due to Heavy Rainfall and Floods in July 2021 (Gesetz zur vorübergehenden Aussetzung der Insolvenzantragspflicht wegen Starkregenfällen und Hochwassern im Juli 2021), which is part of the Reconstruction Assistance Act 2021 (Aufbauhilfegesetzes 2021), the German Federal Parliament and the German Federal Council have decided to suspend the obligation to file for insolvency retroactively as of 10 July 2021.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background