Last year, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Merit, unanimously ruling that a buyout transaction between private parties did not qualify for “safe harbor” protection under Bankruptcy Code section 546(e), on the basis that a “financial institution” acted as an intermediary in the overarching transaction.
La Ley Reguladora de los Contratos de Crédito Inmobiliario introduce un nuevo régimen de vencimiento anticipado de préstamos hipotecarios sobre vivienda habitual de personas físicas
In an order rendered on December 18, 2018, Madrid Commercial Court no 1 allowed a debtor under an insolvency order to sign and homologate a refinancing agreement after the opening of the insolvency proceedings.
The Real Estate Credit Law introduces a new regime of early termination of mortgage loans on an individual´s main residence
Ranking of claims payable to the government in respect of refunded subsidies depends on when they were granted
Judgment by the Supreme Court (Chamber One), November 20, 2018
Chronological parameters must be used when classifying claims arising from the obligation to refund subsidies. Accordingly, if the subsidies were granted before the insolvency order, the claim in respect of the refunded subsidy must be a pre-insolvency claim whereas if the subsidy was granted after the insolvency order, the claim for the refund must be a post-insolvency claim.
El rango de los créditos a favor de la Administración por restitución de subvenciones depende del momento de su concesión
Sentencia de la Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo de 20 de noviembre de 2018
En un auto de 18 de diciembre de 2018, el Juzgado Mercantil número 1 de Madrid ha permitido que un deudor declarado en concurso pueda suscribir y homologar un acuerdo de refinanciación con posterioridad a la declaración de concurso.
El Tribunal Constitucional ha declarado inconstitucional una disposición de una ley del Parlamento de Cataluña que permitía que, en caso de venta a un tercero (habitualmente un fondo) de un crédito garantizado con vivienda, el deudor pudiera liberarse de su deuda pagando al comprador de la deuda exclusivamente el precio que éste había pagado (más los intereses legales y gastos causados por la reclamación).
On November 30, 2018, Judge Nelson S. Román of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision affirming the dismissal of certain claims brought by senior secured creditors against junior secured creditors concerning the alleged breach of standstill and turnover provisions in an intercreditor agreement that governed the creditors’ relationship as creditors with recourse to common collateral. SeeIn re MPM Silicones, LLC, No. 15-CV-2280 (NSR), 2018 WL 6324842 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018) (“Momentive”).
On November 8, 2018, Judge Vyskocil of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York issued a decision dismissing the involuntary petition that had been filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a non-recourse CDO, thus ending a nearly seventeen-month-long saga that was followed closely by bankruptcy practitioners and securitization professionals alike. SeeTaberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. v. Opportunities II Ltd., et. al., (In re Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd.), No. 17-11628 (MKV), 2018 WL 5880918, at *24 (Bankr.