The proposed EU Directive on harmonisation of insolvency law seeks to set minimum standards for exercising avoidance actions in insolvency proceedings in order to safeguard the insolvency estate from unlawful asset transfers before the initiation of insolvency proceedings.

In Peru, the insolvency system is administrative rather than judicial. Because the administrative authority has limited powers, preference and avoidance actions must be resolved by the Judiciary. In recent years, the use of these actions has become more frequent.

Scope of avoidance actions

Peruvian legislation does not formally encompass the possibility of entering into pre-pack agreements with creditors. Nevertheless, it does include other mechanisms that allow companies to reach agreements with creditors prior to the commencement of an insolvency proceeding. In this article, we will provide a introduction to this topic and to insolvency proceedings in Peru.

I. Introduction

The insolvency systems for companies and other legal entities vary from country to country. The main purpose of insolvency legislation, however, is fundamentally the same worldwide. If there is important value in the business, we need to protect it in order for the company to continue as a viable business and pay creditors. If the liquidation value is higher than the operational value, jurisdictions have liquidation mechanisms that allow companies to efficiently exit the market and pay creditors through an ordered sale of assets.

The economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic will leave in its wake a significant increase in commercial chapter 11 filings. Many of these cases will feature extensive litigation involving breach of contract claims, business interruption insurance disputes, and common law causes of action based on novel interpretations of long-standing legal doctrines such as force majeure.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Dennis Montali recently ruled in the Chapter 11 case of Pacific Gas & Electric (“PG&E”) that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) has no jurisdiction to interfere with the ability of a bankrupt power utility company to reject power purchase agreements (“PPAs”).

The Supreme Court this week resolved a long-standing open issue regarding the treatment of trademark license rights in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court ruled in favor of Mission Products, a licensee under a trademark license agreement that had been rejected in the chapter 11 case of Tempnology, the debtor-licensor, determining that the rejection constituted a breach of the agreement but did not rescind it.

Few issues in bankruptcy create as much contention as disputes regarding the right of setoff. This was recently highlighted by a decision in the chapter 11 case of Orexigen Therapeutics in the District of Delaware.

The judicial power of the United States is vested in courts created under Article III of the Constitution. However, Congress created the current bankruptcy court system over 40 years ago pursuant to Article I of the Constitution rather than under Article III.

Southeastern Grocers (operator of the Winn-Dixie, Bi Lo and Harvey’s supermarket chains) recently completed a successful restructuring of its balance sheet through a “prepackaged” chapter 11 case in the District of Delaware. As part of the deal with the holders of its unsecured bonds, the company agreed that under the plan of reorganization it would pay in cash the fees and expenses of the trustee for the indenture under which the unsecured bonds were issued.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Merit Management Group, LP v. FTI Consulting, Inc. has appropriately drawn significant attention.