Dischargeable Claims

On September 29, 2020, the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary advanced a Democrat-backed bill to the full chamber that seeks to address perceived shortcomings in the Bankruptcy Code’s protections for employee and retiree benefits and to curtail the use of bonuses and special compensation arrangements for executives in bankruptcy cases.

Law 3/2020, of 18 September, on procedural and organisational measures to tackle COVID-19 in the area of the Administration of Justice entered into effect on 20 September 2020.

The new insolvency and corporate measures are brought in with three primary aims:

El pasado 20 de septiembre de 2020, entró en vigor 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.

Según se establece, estas nuevas medidas concursales y societarias se llevan a cabo con una triple finalidad:

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.

Recently, in In re Tribune Company, the Third Circuit affirmed that the Bankruptcy Code means exactly what it says and that the enforcement of subordination agreements can be abridged when cramming down confirmation of a chapter 11 plan over a rejecting class entitled to the benefit of the subordination agreement, so long as doing so does not “unfairly discriminate” against the rejecting class (and the other requirements for a cramdown are satisfied).

Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.

No, says the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Maxus Energy Corp. In Maxus, the defendant, Vista Analytical Laboratory, Inc. (“Vista” or the “Defendant”), a designated critical vendor, sought summary judgement dismissing the preference complaint. The Court denied summary judgement finding that the critical vendor status did not per se insulate Vista from preference actions.

Background