1. RDA (RDL, its Spanish acronym) 11/2014, of 5 September, on urgent measures in insolvency matters, amends, inter alia, the rules on majorities required for the acceptance of settlement proposals.

The new rules can be found in art. 124(1) of the Spanish Insolvency Act (Ley Concursal), which now reads as follows:

1. El RDL 11/2014, de 5 de septiembre, de medidas urgentes en materia concursal, ha venido a modificar, entre otros extremos, el régimen de las mayorías necesarias para la aceptación de propuestas de convenio.

El corazón de la nueva disciplina está constituido por el nuevo apartado 1 del art. 124 LC, que ha quedado redactado como sigue:

According to its Explanatory Notes, RD Act (Order in Council) 4/2014, of 7 March, adopting  urgent measures on business debt refinancing and restructuring, aims to facilitate the financial  repair and recovery of companies facing an economic crisis. To this end, a set of rules varying in  scope and significance have been laid down, which I here discuss with regards to the treatment  reserved to loans granted under refinancing agreements - as provided by the Spanish Insolvency  Act (IA) - and their signatory creditors.

EL RDL 4/2014, de 7 de marzo, por el que se adoptan medidas urgentes en materia de refinanciación y reestructuración de deuda empresarial, tiene como objetivo declarado (vid. su Exposición de Motivos) facilitar el saneamiento financiero de las empresas en situación de crisis económica. A estos efectos se han dictado un conjunto de normas de diferente alcance y significado.

On December 5, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that the city of Detroit had satisfied the five expressly delineated eligibility requirements for filing under Chapter 9 of the US Bankruptcy Code¹ and so could proceed with its bankruptcy case.

On May 15, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Circuit Court”) issued an opinion in In re TOUSA, Inc.,¹ in which it affirmed the original decision of the bankruptcy court and reversed the appellate decision of the district court. After a 13-day trial, the bankruptcy court had found that liens granted by certain TOUSA subsidiaries (the “Conveying Subsidiaries”) to secure new loans (the “New Term Loans”) incurred to pay off preexisting indebtedness to certain lenders (the “Transeastern Lenders”) were avoidable fraudulent transfers.

Introduction

The recent bankruptcy filings by infrastructure companies Connector 2000 Association Inc., South Bay Expressway, L.P., California Transportation Ventures, Inc., and the Las Vegas Monorail Company have tested the structures utilized to implement public-private partnerships (P3s) in the United States in several respects. It is still too early to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of these proceedings on P3 structures going forward, but initial rulings in two of the cases are already focusing the minds of project participants on threshold structuring considerations.

In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.

To promote equal treatment of creditors, the US Congress has armed debtors with the power to bring suit to recover a variety of pre-bankruptcy transfers. Prominent among these is a debtor’s ability under Section 548 of the Bankruptcy Code to recover constructively fraudulent transfers — i.e., transfers made without fair consideration when a debtor is insolvent.