Jurisdiction to hear a case related to a temporary layoff procedure due to force majeure caused by COVID-19 lies with labor courts not the insolvency judge

Decision by León Commercial Court, April 1, 2020

In this study dated on December 3, 2019 the European Commission analyzes the legal frameworks on insolvency and defaults in the various member states; specifically, the various individual and collective loan enforcement systems –and their effectiveness for recovering non-performing loans (NPLs).

State governments can be creditors of individuals, businesses and institutions that are debtors in bankruptcy in a variety of ways, most notably as tax and fine collectors but also as lenders. They can also be debtors of debtors, in their role, for example, as the purchasers of vast quantities of goods and services on credit. And they can also be transferees of a debtor’s property in (at least) every role in which they can be creditors.

We have noodled on the impact that the Supreme Court’s decision in Merit Management Group, LP v.

Whether because of, or in spite of, the proliferating case law it is hard to say, but the issues in, underlying and surrounding third-party releases in Chapter 11 plans just continue to arise with incessant regularity, albeit without a marked increase in clarity. We have posted about those issues here six times in little more than two years,[1] and it is fair to assume that this post will not be the last.

On September 10, 2019, Madrid Commercial Court number 6 delivered a decision arguing that it was necessary to examine whether the prior notice under article 5 bis of the Insolvency Law stemmed from steps taken to prepare or perform serious and effective negotiations.

In the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“2005 Act”), Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code and Title 28 of the U.S.

A bankruptcy trustee exercising her or his avoidance powers under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code may seek to recover the avoidably transferred property (or its value) from “the initial transferee,” “the entity for whose benefit such transfer was made” and “any immediate or mediate transferee of such initial transferee.”[1] Despite the authorization to seek recovery from multiple sources, “[t]he trustee is entitled to only a sin

Our May 22 post reported on the Supreme Court’s May 20 decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v.

Final provision number three of the Trade Secrets Law, in force since March 13, 2019, authorized the government to approve a revised wording of the Insolvency Law within eight months. Under that authorization, on March 22 the Ministries of Justice and of Economy and Enterprise submitted a bill for the Revised Insolvency Law.