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.

In 2011, the Spanish legislator introduced the court-sanctioned refinancing agreement (‘Spanish Scheme’) in the Spanish insolvency system. While the introduction of the Spanish Scheme has been praised for providing new tools for debtors to reorganise out-of-court while addressing the collective action problem, certain of its provisions have made this instrument too rigid and, thus, ineffective for tackling Spanish restructurings.

Compensation of a debt made after the debtor’s bankruptcy declaration via the appropriation of securities pledged by virtue of a financial guarantee, is admitted.

The validity of a transaction assessed as “compensation” that was carried out after the bankruptcy declaration of the company in debt was questioned before the Supreme Court. The credit entity applied the value obtained from the reimbursement of an investment fund that had been pledged to secure a credit policy to reduce the debt.

JUDGEMENTS NO. 541/2012, OF OCTOBER 23, 2012, BY THE ZARAGOZA BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NOS. 413/2011, OF DECEMBER 19, AND 18/2012, OF JANUARY 18, BY THE BURGOS BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NO. 132/2012, OF APRIL 10, BY THE RULING OF THE VALENCIA BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, AND NOS. 210/2012 AND 211/2012, BOTH OF JULY 20, BY THE ALICANTE COMMERCIAL COURT

Guarantees granted by a group company for securing a loan used to repay the insolvent party’s personal debts are detrimental to the insolvency estate. Article 10 of the Mortgage Market Act refers solely to mortgages that are already part of an issue of mortgage securities.

The Supreme Court sets a precedent regarding the bankruptcy classification of the credits arising from contracts with reciprocal obligations whose performance is ordered by the judge in the interest of the bankruptcy: these are credits against the bankrupt estate independently of when they are originated.

The Supreme Court rescinded a payment made to the creditor that petitioned for compulsory insolvency in a case where the creditor withdrew its petition and the debtor applied for voluntary bankruptcy several weeks later.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court made the following significant assertions in respect of insolvency rescission of payments:

Under Additional Provision Four of the Insolvency Act,¹ which regulates the courts’ sanction of refinancing agreements, the effects of the moratorium established in the agreement will be extended to dissenting financial entities, provided that the conditions specified in that precept are fulfilled (where the requisites imposed under article 71.6 of the Insolvency Act regarding the agreement itself are met and where it has been signed by creditors representing at least 75% of the financial entities’ liabilities at the time of the agreement).

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).