Earlier this year, we covered Judge Shelley Chapman’s ruling in the Sabine bankruptcy, permitting the Debtors to reject a handful of gathering and other midstream agreements. Previously, Judge Chapman permitted rejection on the grounds that the Debtors exercised their reasonable business judgement in doing so.

On April 26, the CFPB published a proposed rule regarding potential amendments to certain mortgage servicing provisions in RESPA (Regulation X) and TILA (Regulation Z).

En los años de mayor crisis económica se dispararon las compraventas de unidades productivas autónomas en el marco de procedimientos concursales. La Ley Concursal regulaba estas compraventas permitiendo a los adjudicatarios reflotar un negocio minorando las cargas acumuladas hasta el momento del concurso.Uno de los debates en estas situaciones es el alcance de la responsabilidad de la empresa adjudicataria sobre las obligaciones laborales de los trabajadores afectos a la unidad productiva autónoma.

In 2014, the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. (“ISDA”), published the 2014 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions (the “Definitions”), which updated the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions.[1]

1.                 BACKGROUND

Bankruptcy Judge Shelley Chapman held that Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. has satisfied the standards for rejection of several gathering and handling agreements between Sabine and its midstream counter-parties, Nordheim Eagle Ford Gathering, LLC and HPIP Gonzales Holdings, LLC.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Porto of February 15, 2016

Page | 1 Pubblicato in G.U. il Decreto Legge sulla Riforma delle Banche di Credito Cooperativo Finance Law Alert Follow up 16 FEBBRAIO 2016 PUBBLICATO IN G.U. IL DECRETO DI RIFORMA DELLE BCC Con riferimento al nostro precedente alert dell'11 febbraio 2016 relativo alla riforma delle BCC, abbiamo redatto il presente alert di follow up a seguito della pubblicazione in Gazzetta Ufficiale, Serie Generale n. 37, del 15 febbraio 2016, del decreto legge 14 febbraio 2016 n.

A credit institution appealed the ruling that approved the agreement claiming that the creditors meeting had allowed the presence and vote by a city council that, in its opinion, did not have such right because it was the holder of 100% of the share capital of the insolvent party.

This ruling resolved an issue originating from a personal and joint and several guarantee granted by two companies to secure the obligations assumed by a Dutch company under a junior financing agreement. In light of the Dutch company's default on one of its payments under that agreement, the creditor companies sued the debtor, and the court issued a resolution ordering the debtor company to pay the amount claimed.