The decision of November 25, 2020, by the Secretary of State for the Economy and Business Support, published the decision by the council of ministers setting out the terms and conditions for the new tranches of the guarantee facilities approved by Royal Decree-Law 25/2020, of July 3, 2020. The new tranches are to be used for funding to businesses under an arrangement and any which, while not under an arrangement, were in the process of reviewing their promissory note program on MARF (Spanish Alternative Bond Market) on April 23, 2020.
La prolongada duración de los efectos de la pandemia COVID-19 sobre el tejido económico empresarial ha impulsado al Gobierno a extender en el tiempo algunas de las medidas en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia que se habían adoptado en el marco del Real Decreto-Ley 16/2020, de 28 de abril, posteriormente confirmadas en la Ley 3/2020, de 18 de septiembre.
Analizamos la Ley 3/2020, de 18 de septiembre, de medidas procesales y organizativas para hacer frente al COVID-19 en el ámbito de la Administración de Justicia para comprobar qué hay nuevo y qué ha cambiado esta nueva regulación respecto a la norma que la precedió, el RDL 16/2020 publicado durante la primera oleada de la pandemia.
Como ya hiciera la Comisión Europea con su instrumento de liquidez para apoyo a la solvencia (Solvency Support Instrument) lanzado a finales de mayo y cuyos rasgos generales se describen aquí, el Gobierno de España ha creado, mediante el Real Decreto-ley 25/2020, un nuevo fondo para intentar prevenir las insolvencias
Analyzing the inner workings of the elements required for the securities contract “safe harbor” protection under Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Court for the SDNY dismissed a complaint seeking to recover approximately US$1 billion in allegedly fraudulent transfers brought against various transferees as part of the Boston Generating Chapter 11 case.
It is well established that by filing a proof of claim in bankruptcy, a creditor submits itself to the equitable jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court and waives any right it would otherwise have to a jury trial with respect to any issue that “bears directly on the allowance of its claim.” Such a waiver normally applies in fraudulent transfer actions, since under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code the court must disallow a claim of any entity that received an avoidable transfer.
Two courts recently answered “yes,” finding that environmental claims brought against reorganized debtors by government entities were discharged under confirmed Chapter 11 plans of reorganization. In In re Exide Techs., 613 B.R. 79 (D. Del. 2020), the District of Delaware held that pre-petition, non-compensatory air quality penalties imposed on a Chapter 11 debtor by a state regulator were subject to discharge in bankruptcy. And in In re Peabody Energy Corp.
I.Exide Techs.: the Bankruptcy Code’s Exceptions to Dischargeability
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de reestructuraciones e insolvencias.
La competencia para conocer de un ERTE por fuerza mayor derivada del COVID-19 corresponde a la jurisdicción laboral y no al juez del concurso
Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil de León, de 1 de abril de 2020
Un informe de la Comisión Europea, del 3 de diciembre de 2019, analiza en los marcos legales sobre insolvencia e impago de deudas de los diferentes Estados miembros y, en concreto, los distintos sistemas de ejecución –tanto individual como colectiva– y su efectividad para recuperar los créditos de dudoso cobro (NPLs).
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