El 6 de junio el Consejo de la Unión Europea aprobó la Propuesta de Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre marcos de reestructuración preventiva, segunda oportunidad y medidas para aumentar la eficacia de los procedimientos de condonación, insolvencia y reestructuración.

Con ello se pone fin al proceso legislativo de la Directiva y queda pendiente solo de publicación en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea (DOUE).

En términos generales, la directiva aprobada impone a los Estados miembros la implementación de normativa armonizada relativa a:

A member state’s court entertaining an insolvency proceeding has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain clawback actions brought within the proceeding

On June 6 the Council of the European Union approved the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures.

This marks an end to the legislative process of the Directive, which is now pending to be publisged in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Put concisely, the approved directive imposes an obligation on member states to implement harmonized legislation on:

Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

Trademark licensors and licensees, as well as their stakeholders (including lenders), should heed the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC n/k/a Old Cold, LLC, No. 17-1657. The Justices resolved a long-standing question arising from the intersection of bankruptcy and trademark law: whether a debtor/licensor’s rejection of a trademark license terminates the licensee’s right to use a trademark after rejection.

Selection of the main restructuring and insolvency judgments.

Requirements for subordination of claims notified out of time

For a claim notified out of time not to be classed as subordinate, it must meet the following tests: (i) it must appear in the debtors’ documents; (ii) it must be due and payable; (iii) the fact that it exists and is payable must be beyond doubt; and (iv) it cannot be overlooked by the insolvency practitioner when drawing up the list of creditors by reason of the circumstances of the case.

Under article 55 of the Spanish Insolvency Law, it is not allowed after the insolvency order to take individual enforcement action or initiate tax or administrative enforced collection proceedings against the debtor’s property; although until approval of the liquidation plan, administrative enforcement proceedings in which an attachment order has been issued are allowed to continue, together with enforcement actions for employee claims in which the insolvent company's assets have been attached, although certain restrictions apply.

El Tribunal Supremo concluye que la prohibición de ejecuciones una vez abierta la fase de liquidación opera tanto sobre créditos concursales, como sobre los créditos contra la masa, se trate de créditos administrativos o de otros acreedores.

• It is common for the ownership and operation of a hotel to be separated and this should be reflected in a lender's security package.

• In the event of financial distress, a review of the hotel holding and operating structure and security package is essential to identify pre-enforcement and enforcement options available to the lender.

• The practicalities of enforcement need to be considered alongside the legal options, including the position in relation to existing licences and short term funding requirements, as this will inform the strategy for how the a

In a case of first impression, the Fifth Circuit held that a defendant is not required to plead as an affirmative defense under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act that it had complied with Section 1024.41 of the Code of Federal Regulations by responding properly to a borrower’s loss mitigation application. Germain v. US Bank National Association, — F. 3d — (2019 WL 146705, April 3, 2019). It affirmed the dismissal of the borrower’s RESPA claim on a summary judgment motion, based on the following facts.