On February 27, 2018, the United States Supreme Court resolved a circuit split regarding the proper application of the safe harbor set forth in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, a provision that prohibits the avoidance of a transfer if the transfer was made in connection with a securities contract and made by or to (or for the benefit of) certain qualified entities, including a financial institution.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code – a provision which, in effect, prohibits confirmation of a plan unless the plan has been accepted by at least one impaired class of claims – applies on “per plan” rather than a “per debtor” basis, even when the plan at issue covers multiple debtors. In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 2018 WL 615431 (9th Cir. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court is the first circuit court to address the issue.

Some six years after the United States Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, courts continue to grapple with the decision’s meaning and how much it curtails the exercise of bankruptcy court jurisdiction.[1] The U.S.

Purpose

A continuación vamos a explorar diversos problemas que se plantean a propósito del apartado 9 de la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal, cuando existen garantes personales (o garantes reales por deuda ajena) en un proceso de refinanciación homologable por dicha disposición.

1. El crédito contingente contra el garante que refinancia por la disposición adicional 4.ª

Below we will explore several problems that arise in connection with para. 9 of the 4th Additional Provision ("AP") of the Insolvency Act ("LCon") when there are personal guarantors – or collateral-providers for third party debt – within refinancing arrangement ‘homologation’ (court-sanctioning) proceedings under said 4th AP.

1. Contingent claim against the guarantor who refinances under the 4th AP.

On March 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts cannot approve a “structured dismissal”—a dismissal with special conditions or that does something other than restoring the “prepetition financial status quo”—providing for distributions that deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme absent the consent of affected creditors. Czyzewski v.Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 580 U.S. ___ (2017), 2017 WL 1066259, at *3 (Mar. 22, 2017).

PRIMERA. El dinero de la refinanciación a efectos de los artículos 71 bis, 82.2.11.º y la disposición adicional 4.ª de la Ley Concursal (LCon) es suficiente que se haya suscrito «en el contexto de la refinanciación» y se destine a que el deudor obtenga liquidez, pudiendo ser una financiación simultánea, anterior o posterior al acuerdo, «siempre y cuando esté íntimamente conectado conéste y con la viabilidad de la empresa a corto o medio plazo»(conclusión aprobada por mayoría).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has just made a pronouncement on three of the most important matters open to interpretation concerning the regime applicable to financial collateral arrangements under Directive 47/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 June 2002.

The defence of illegality, enunciated in arts. 1305 and 1306 of the Civil Code (abbrev.