El pasado día 1 de septiembre entró en vigor el Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2020, de 5 de mayo, por el que se aprueba el texto refundido de la Ley Concursal (TRLC). De este modo, la Ley 22/2003, de 9 de julio, Concursal queda derogada casi en su totalidad.

Según se establece en el Preámbulo del TRLC, este texto refundido se ha creado ante la imprescindible necesidad de reordenación, clarificación y armonización tanto de la Ley Concursal como de las normas que con rango de ley que modificaron la misma.

Royal Legislative Decree 1/2020, of 5 May, which approves the Recast Spanish Insolvency Law (Texto Refundido de la Ley Concursal, or TRLC) entered into effect on 1 September. As a result, the former Insolvency Law 22/2003, of 9 July, has been derogated almost in its entirety.

According to the TRLC’s Preamble, Spanish insolvency legislation has been amended given the need to reorder, clarify and harmonise the former Insolvency Law and the provisions that have since amended it.

As discussed in earlier posts,¹ substantial uncertainty exists over whether companies in bankruptcy are eligible to pursue funding pursuant to the SBA’s Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, which was established by the CARES Act to support small businesses by offering SBA-guaranteed loans on advantageous terms.

As discussed in an earlier Legal Update,¹ substantial uncertainty exists over whether companies in bankruptcy are eligible for loans under the Paycheck Protection Program, or PPP, which was established by the CARES Act to support small businesses by offering SBA-guaranteed loans on advantageous terms. Several recent bankruptcy court decisions underscore this uncertainty.

With the aim of managing the potential ramifications of the measures that have so far been implemented in the context of the COVID-19 crisis, the Spanish Government has approved Royal Decree-law 16/2020, of 28 April, of procedural and organisational measures to tackle COVID-19 connected to the administration of justice.

As courts across the country deal with scaled back operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy courts in New Jersey and Delaware have issued novel orders to address the impact of the virus on certain debtors. Last month, debtors in the chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Modell’s Sporting Goods, Inc. and CraftWorks Parent, LLC each sought and obtained court orders suspending certain case activity which, for all intents and purposes “mothballed” the cases for a certain period of time.

In Spain individuals and entities have an obligation to file for insolvency if they are unable to regularly meet their obligations within two months of the position of insolvency coming to light. Breach of that obligation could lead to civil (and even criminal) liability.

The legal obligation imposed by the Spanish Insolvency Law 22/2003, of 9 July (the “Spanish Insolvency Law”), has been modified by Royal Decree-law 8/2020 (the “RDL”), of 17 March, on extraordinary measures to tackle the economic and social impact of COVID-19.

Prepayment premiums (also referred to as make-whole premiums) are a common feature in loan documents, allowing lenders to recover a lump-sum amount if a borrower pays off loan obligations prior to maturity, effectively compensating lenders for yield that they would have otherwise received absent prepayment. As a result of the widespread use of such provisions, three circuit courts of appeal – the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second, Third and Fifth Circuit – have recently had to address the enforceability of prepayment provisions in bankruptcy.

In recent weeks, the dispute in Windstream’s bankruptcy between Windstream and its REIT spinoff Uniti Group over the lease transaction that ultimately led to Windstream’s chapter 11 bankruptcy has continued to escalate with Windstream filing an adversary complaint against Uniti. In its complaint, Windstream seeks to recharacterize the lease as a disguised financing alleging that the lease resulted in a long-term transfer of billions of dollars to Uniti to the detriment of Windstream’s creditors.

On April 23, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in fraudulent transfer litigation arising out of the 2007 leveraged buyout of the Tribune Company,1 ruled on one of the significant issues left unresolved by the US Supreme Court in its Merit Management decision last year.