Intercreditor agreements between secured creditors are intended to limit the potential for litigation and result in predictable commercial outcomes with respect to recoveries from collateral in enforcement actions and bankruptcies. Despite the extensive drafting efforts of sophisticated counsel to eliminate ambiguities in these agreements, the interpretation of intercreditor agreements has been the subject of substantial bankruptcy litigation.
El Tribunal Constitucional ha declarado inconstitucional una disposición de una ley del Parlamento de Cataluña que permitía que, en caso de venta a un tercero (habitualmente un fondo) de un crédito garantizado con vivienda, el deudor pudiera liberarse de su deuda pagando al comprador de la deuda exclusivamente el precio que éste había pagado (más los intereses legales y gastos causados por la reclamación).
On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).
Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.
Nulidad de un despido colectivo realizado en la sucursal española de una sociedad sometida a un procedimiento de insolvencia alemán
Sentencia de la Sala de lo Social de la Audiencia Nacional de 30 de abril de 2018
Collective layoff voided at Spanish branch of a company subject to German insolvency proceedings
Judgment by the National Appellate Court (Labor Chamber) on April 30, 2018
An insolvency order by a German court on a company does not in itself authorize that company to carry out a collective layoff at its Spanish branch. The German company should have petitioned for a local insolvency proceeding on its Spanish branch to obtain authorization from the judge hearing the Spanish insolvency proceeding to conduct the collective layoff at its branch.
On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.
The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.
On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.
No toda venta de unidad productiva en el seno de un concurso es una operación no sujeta a IVA
Sentencia del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central de 21 de marzo de 2018