- 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:
- 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:
The High Court and the Supreme Court recently confirmed a Scheme of Arrangement for SIAC Construction Limited (SCL) and certain related companies despite objections from a number of creditors. The creditors claimed that the exclusion of claims for penalties, interest and, in particular, damages not awarded by a certain date and the imposed waiver of subrogated claims was unfairly prejudicial.
Initial Confirmation Hearing
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.
A former director of Custom House Capital Limited (CHC) was recently found by the High Court to have fraudulently misrepresented to an investor that her €145,000 investment in the company was “safe” a year before CHC's collapse.
In March 2010 Ms Tressan Scott entered into a Subordinated Loan Agreement with CHC pursuant to which she loaned the sum of €145,000 to CHC. At the time the agreement was signed, Ms Scott was recovering from treatment for Lymphoma.
The Foley’s/O’Reilly’s bar saga, which played out over a nine month period ending in July 2013, resulted in numerous court applications, three written judgments of the High Court and the appointment at various stages of receivers, interim examiners, examiners and liquidators to the companies involved.
Receivership
Recent attempts by Bank of Scotland plc. to enforce its security over the company operating Foley’s Bar and O’Reilly’s Bar in Dublin city centre have been frustrated following various challenges in the High Court culminating in the appointment of an examiner.
Bank of Scotland plc. appointed a receiver to The Belohn Limited, the company operating the two bars, in October 2012. The Belohn Limited and its parent company, Merrow Limited, are reported to owe the bank in the region of €4 million and €1 million respectively.
Recent attempts by Bank of Scotland plc to enforce its security over the company operating Foley’s Bar and O’Reilly’s Bar in Dublin city centre have been frustrated following various challenges in the High Court, culminating in the appointment of an examiner.
The Belohn Limited is the company which operates Foley’s Bar and the adjoining O’Reilly’s Bar. Its parent company is Merrow Limited. The two companies are reported to owe the bank in the region of €4 million and €1 million respectively.
The High Court has recently held that a former employee of a construction company, which was in liquidation, had no reasonable cause of action against the company’s insurer. This was despite the fact that he had obtained judgment for negligence against the employer and the insurance policy covered the employer for such a claim in negligence.