Garrigues detectó que no existía una directriz clara que permitiera a los notarios expedir a favor de los fondos adquirentes de los créditos fallidos otra copia de la escritura de hipoteca “con efectos ejecutivos”.
In 2002 the Supreme Court of Canada, in Bank of Montreal v Dynex Petroleum Ltd, 2002 SCC 7 (Dynex) affirmed that gross overriding royalty interests (GOR) could constitute interest in land provided the parties so intended and that intention was sufficiently evidenced in an agreement.
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”).
Garrigues detected that there was no clear guideline that allowed notaries to issue another enforceable copy of the mortgage deed to funds that had acquired NPLs.
The Directorate-General of Registries and Notaries (Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado or DGRN) has issued an important ruling, which will enable international investors acquiring NPLs (non-performing loans) from Spanish financial institutions to speed up their recovery significantly, especially if the debts are secured with a mortgage guarantee.
The Lightstream decision confirms that Canadian courts have the jurisdiction under the CCAA to both: (i) incorporate and apply the oppression remedy; and (ii) where appropriate, when oppressive conduct has occurred, grant an order requiring a corporation to issue additional securities. However, such jurisdiction is limited and defined by the scheme and purpose of the CCAA.
In Re Lightstream Resources Ltd, 2016 ABQB 665 (Lightstream), the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta (Court) confirmed that it had jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct while a business is restructuring under the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (CCAA). The decision also provides insight as to when a court might exercise its equitable jurisdiction to remedy oppressive conduct in a CCAA proceeding.
Background