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

The ability to "surcharge" a secured creditor's collateral in bankruptcy is an important resource available to a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession ("DIP"), particularly in cases where there is little or no equity in the estate to pay administrative costs, such as the fees and expenses of estate-retained professionals. However, as demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the circumstances under which collateral may be surcharged are narrow. In In re Towne, Inc., 2013 BL 232068 (3d Cir. Aug.

Section 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates bifurcation of a debtor's obligation to a secured creditor into secured and unsecured claims, depending on the value of the collateral securing the debt. The term "value," however, is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, and bankruptcy courts vary in their approaches to the meaning of the term. In In re Heritage Highgate, Inc., 679 F.3d 132 (3d Cir.

The ability to sell an asset in bankruptcy free and clear of liens and any other competing “interest” is a well-recognized tool available to a trustee or chapter 11 debtor in possession (“DIP”). Whether the category of “interests” encompassed by that power extends to potential successor liability claims, however, has been the subject of considerable debate in the courts. A New York bankruptcy court recently addressed this controversial issue in Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011).