Fulltext Search

La crisis económica en la que se vio sumida España desde el año 2007, y de la que poco a poco el país se viene sobreponiendo, ha espoleado a los 'players' del mercado de reestructuraciones para salir de su zona de confort e introducirse en caminos hasta ahora apenas transitados en nuestro país.

Garrigues detectó que no existía una directriz clara que permitiera a los notarios expedir a favor de los fondos adquirentes de los créditos fallidos otra copia de la escritura de hipoteca “con efectos ejecutivos”.

Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.

La provisión con cargo a la masa como medida cautelar a favor de un acreedor contingente debe ser material

Auto de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona de 3 de abril de 2018

A provision out of assets available to creditors as injunctive relief for holder of contingent claim must actually be material

Decision by Barcelona Provincial Appellate Court on April 3, 2018

On March 14, 2018 the European Commission presented the Second Progress Report on the reduction of non-performing loans (“NPLs”). The report comprises a memo and a factsheet, whose versions in English can be obtained on the website of the European Commission, which also distributed a press release (English version).

On February 28 last the European Commission published the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”).

Garrigues detected that there was no clear guideline that allowed notaries to issue another enforceable copy of the mortgage deed to funds that had acquired NPLs.

The Directorate-General of Registries and Notaries (Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado or DGRN) has issued an important ruling, which will enable international investors acquiring NPLs (non-performing loans) from Spanish financial institutions to speed up their recovery significantly, especially if the debts are secured with a mortgage guarantee.

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

2012 is shaping up as a year of bankruptcy first impressions for the Ninth Circuit. The court of appeals sailed into uncharted bankruptcy waters twice already this year in the same chapter 11 case. On January 24, the court ruled in In re Thorpe Insulation Co., 2012 WL 178998 (9th Cir. Jan. 24, 2012) ("Thorpe I"), that an appeal by certain nonsettling asbestos insurers of an order confirming a chapter 11 plan was not equitably moot because, among other things, the plan had not been "substantially consummated" under the court's novel construction of that statutory term.