An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.

1. Debt capitalisation in court-approved refinancing agreements

The 4th additional provision (4th a.p.) of the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) provides that certain effects under a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement may extend to financial creditors that either have not signed the agreement or have expressed disagreement with it (dissenting creditors).

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.

Setoff provisions are commonly found in a variety of trading related agreements between hedge funds and their dealer counterparties. Last November, Judge Christopher Sontchi of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that “triangular setoff” is not enforceable in the context of a bankruptcy case.[1] “Triangular setoff” is a contractual right of setoff that permits one party (“Party One”) to net and set off contractual claims of Party One and its affiliated entities  against another party (“Party Two”).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held on July 30, 2013, that a reorganized Chapter 11 debtor could reopen its closed case, enabling the debtor assignee to enforce a purchase option in a real property lease despite the lease’s “anti-assignment provisions.” In re Lazy Days’ RV Center Inc., 2013 WL 3886735, *5 (3d Cir. July 30, 2013).