Case Summary
This case presents a common scenario and dynamic that a party involved with a distressed bank holding company may have seen in the last several years.
Many indentures contain “make-whole provisions,” which protect a noteholder’s right to receive bargained-for interest payments by requiring compensation for lost interest when accrued principal and interest are paid early. Make-whole provisions permit a borrower to redeem or repay notes before maturity, but require the borrower to make a payment that is calculated to compensate noteholders for a loss of expected interest payments.
- Introduction
On 7 September 2014, Royal Decree Act 11/2014 on urgent measures in insolvency matters (“RD 11/2014”) came into force, introducing important changes in the Spanish Insolvency Act (“SIA”), especially regarding incourt proceedings, whether within a composition or a liquidation stage. This piece of legislation followed Royal Decree 4/2014 (“RD 4/2014), which introduced equivalent measures for preinsolvency restructurings.
In an opinion filed on July 3, 2014, in the case of In re Lower Bucks Hospital, et al., Case No. 10-10239 (ELF), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy Court), which denied approval of third-party releases benefitting The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity as indenture trustee (BNYM, or the Trustee).
Act 26/2013, passed on 27 December 2013 and published in the Official Journal of Spain on 28 December 2013 has amended the provisions of the Spanish Insolvency Act (the “SIA”) related to out-of-court restructuring. In particular Act 26/2013 modifies the 4th Additional Disposition of the SIA which allows to, upon certain circumstances, force extensions to dissident financial creditors in Spanish restructurings through the intervention of a Court (hereinafter, the “Court Homologation”).
Introduction
This paper aims to briefly describe the scenarios where acts or actions might be rescinded (particularly in the context of refinancing or debt restructuring of Spanish companies) pursuant to the Spanish Insolvency Act (“SIA”) and the consequences of rescission from a legal standpoint. Procedural questions related to the subject matter are not analyzed in this document.
What acts can be rescinded?
1. Introduction
Given the situation of Spanish market generally —and the latest reforms on restructuring of the financial sector more particularly— it seems that cash flow shortage may be ongoing in the near to mid term future for some Spanish corporations. Upon this situation stressed or distressed companies may consider rescue financing alternatives in substitution —or in addition to— other traditional funding. Generally within a broadest restructuring deal, non-bank lenders may have an interesting role to play in providing for liquidity facilities.
1. Introduction
Lest you thought you had heard the end of the Stern v. Marshall debate, two recent circuit court decisions remind us that Stern is alive and influential. In October, the Sixth Circuit weighed in on a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority where it discharged certain fraudulent debts and awarded damages. In early December, the Ninth Circuit performed a similar constitutional analysis where the bankruptcy court decided a fraudulent transfer action against a noncreditor of the bankruptcy estate.