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.  

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).