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
The United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) recently issued a long-awaited decision in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. (“Jevic”), which limits the use of “structured dismissals” in Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, requiring structured dismissals pursuant to which final distributions are made to comply with the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme, or the consent of all affected parties to be obtained.1
What is a Structured Dismissal?
Nearly four years after its decision in Stern v. Marshall raised new doubts about the place of bankruptcy courts in our legal system, the Supreme Court has finally put those doubts to rest. This week, in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935, the Court held that even for claims that must otherwise be resolved by an Article III court, a bankruptcy court may still adjudicate the matter based on consent.
The case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), No. 12- 1200, was easily one of the most closely watched bankruptcy cases in many years. Last week’s decision in that case, however, was far less dramatic than some practitioners feared it might be. The Supreme Court answered two important questions regarding the power of bankruptcy courts that it left open three years ago in Stern v. Marshall.