El pasado 18 de junio entró en vigor la Ley 11/2015 de recuperación y resolución de entidades de crédito y empresas de servicios de inversión (la "Ley 11/2015"), que deroga y refunde la antigua Ley 9/2012, de 14 de noviembre, de reestructuración y resolución de entidades de crédito (la "Ley 9/2012").  

El pasado miércoles 27 de mayo de 2015 se produjo la entrada en vigor de la Ley 9/2015, de 25 de mayo, de medidas urgentes en materia concursal. Se termina así el proceso de conversión en Ley del Real Decreto-Ley 11/2014, de 5 de septiembre (ver e-bulletin publicado).

Act 9/2015, of 25 May, regarding urgent measures on insolvency, entered into force in Spain on 27 May 2015, thus concluding the process to give Royal Decree Law 11/2014, of 5 September, the status of an Act in its own right (see published e-bulletin).

On Friday 5 September, the Spanish Council of Ministers approved Royal Decree Law 11/2014, of 5 September, regarding urgent measures on insolvency. The Royal Decree Law brings in a series of significant reforms to the Spanish Insolvency Act 22/2003, of 9 July (the "Insolvency Act"). The new Royal Decree Law entered into force on 7 September 2014.  

Royal Decree-Law 14/2013 ("RD-L 14/2013"), of 29 November, of urgent measures to adapt Spanish law to European Union regulations on the supervision and solvency of financial institutions, that entered into force on 1 December, clarifies the insolvency qualification regime applicable to the credits transferred by SAREB, to third parties, thus modifying section h) of article 36.4 of Act 9/2012, of 14 November, on the restructuring and resolution of credit institutions ("Act 9/2012").

Act 38/2011, of 10 October, which reforms the former Spanish Insolvency Act, introduces a number of measures, including the possibility of obtaining court approval for refinancing agreements meeting certain requirements to extend the agreed debt rescheduling to certain creditors that have either opposed the refinancing agreement (i.e. dissident creditors), or that have not participated in it.

Additional Provision 4 of the Insolvency Act establishes that court approval for refinancing agreements may be sought by the debtor if they meet the following conditions:

Before soliciting votes on its bankruptcy plan, a chapter 11 debtor that has filed for bankruptcy typically must obtain court approval of its disclosure statement. As part of the disclosure-statement approval process, interested parties are afforded the opportunity to object. For example, a party may object on the grounds that the disclosure statement lacks sufficient information about the debtor. Sometimes, however, a party objects to the disclosure statement because the chapter 11 plan described by the statement cannot be confirmed.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

In Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a.k.a. Anna Nicole Smith, lost by a 5-4 margin Round 2 of its Supreme Court bout with the estate of E. Pierce Marshall in a contest over Vickie's rights to a portion of the fortune of her late husband, billionaire J. Howard Marshall II. The dollar figures in dispute, amounting to more than $400 million, and the celebrity status of the original (and now deceased) litigants may grab headlines.

Over the past five years, courts have issued rulings of potential concern to buyers of distressed debt. Courts have addressed, among other things, “loan to own” acquisition strategies resulting in vote designation; equitable subordination, disallowance, and other lender liability exposure based upon the claim seller’s misconduct; disclosure requirements for ad hoc committees of debtholders; the adequacy of standardized claims-trading agreements; and claim-filing requirements in the era of computerized records.