The recent reform of the Bankruptcy Act (operated under RD 11/2014 dated September 5, 2014) intended to extend the bankruptcy agreement modifications in favor of the pre-insolvency restructuring and refinancing agreements which were introduced in March 2014.

The reform has a special provision for privileged creditors with warranties subject to specific valuation formulas, to be adjusted to the actual financial value of the guaranteed credit. Any portion of debts that exceed this value will not be considered as privileged, but will be ordinarily classified.

The Spanish Supreme Court has established the legalconcept of insolvency as an objective requirement forthe Declaration of Insolvency pursuant to Section 2.1 ofthe bankruptcy Act by virtue of the decision taken by the Court on April 1, 2014.

The matter subject to this analysis is decision taken by a Bankruptcy Administration dealing with three companies of the same company group which are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. Given the situation and in response of the confusing information of assets, the Administration under discussion decided to gather the three companies joining all their creditors in a sole debt pooling and besides, joining all the rights and assets of the three companies.  

The object of this article is to analyze a controversial issue which is considered in recent times by the Mercantile Courts as a current incident involved in the Bankruptcy Proceedings and more specifically, to analyze the Judgement issued by the Court of First Instance no. 9 and Mercantile Court of Cordoba dated April, 19th 2010, in which the aforementioned incident is involved.  

This incident is essentially based on establishing the treatment that should be granted to the additional guarantees provided by third parties in bankruptcy proceedings.  

Yesterday, the United Kingdom’s Commercial Secretary to the Treasury launched a consultation on a new special-resolution regime, Special administration regime for investment firms, to strengthen the government’s ability to handle future insolvencies of failing investment banks to minimize cost and disruption of the overall national financial system.

Yesterday, Delaware Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath granted a request by Washington Mutual (WaMu) shareholders to appoint an independent examiner, to be chosen by the U.S. trustee, to review assets and claims in the company’s bankruptcy case related primarily to the 2008 seizure and sale of WaMu by the FDIC to JPMorgan Chase for $1.9 million.

Today, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) announced the closing of its previously announced sale of $233 million of notes backed by performing and non-performing commercial real estate (CRE) loans from 22 different financial institutions f

Friday, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation closed The Bank of Bonifay, headquartered in Bonifay, Florida, and the FDIC was appointed receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with First Federal Bank, headquartered in Lake City, Florida, to assume all of the deposits of The Bank of Bonifay.

Friday, the California Department of Financial Institutions closed 1st Pacific Bank of California, headquartered in San Diego, California, and the FDIC was appointed receiver.

Friday, the Minnesota Department of Commerce closed Access Bank, headquartered in Champlin, Minnesota, and the FDIC was appointed receiver. As receiver, the FDIC entered into a purchase and assumption agreement with Prinsbank, headquartered in Prinsburg, Minnesota, to assume all of the deposits of Access Bank.