GRANADA COMMERCIAL COURT NO. 1 RULING OF MARCH 17, 2014; LOGROÑO COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NO. 6 DECREE OF APRIL 25, 2014; BARCELONA COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NO. 38 DECREE OF MAY 14, 2014; AND PONTEVEDRA COMMERCIAL COURT NO. 2 DECISION OF JUNE 6, 2014: FIRST DECISIONS ON THE SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 5 BIS OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT AFTER ROYAL DECREE-LAW 4/2014
BARCELONA PROVINCIAL COURT (DIVISION 15) RULING OF APRIL 3, 2014, NO.
116/2014, AND LA CORUNA PROVINCIAL COURT (DIVISION 4) RULING OF APRIL 22,
2014, NO. 118/2014: ARTICLE 90.1.6 OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT REFERS TO THE PLEDGE SECURING FUTURE CREDITS
Two new decisions on article 90.1.6 of the Insolvency Act coincide in stating that the last point of this precept refers to the pledge securing future credits, and not to the pledge over future credit rights.
(ORDONNANCE Nº 2014-326 DU 12 MARS 2014 ET DÉCRET NO 2014-736 DU 30 JUIN 2014)
La nouvelle ordonnance nº 2014-326 du 12 mars 2014 modifie avec environ 120 articles essentiellement insérés dans le Code de Commerce, le régime des entreprises en difficulté. Un décret d’application publié le 30 juin 2014 a précisé les détails de ce texte.
Nous exposons ici quelques points principaux de la réforme (liste non exhaustive) :
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20-03-2014 Standardization of Jurisprudence – Insolvency Proceedings – Right of Retention
Spanish Royal Decree-Law 4/2014, passed on March 7 2014, has considerably changed the rules for the court-sanctioning of so-called Spanish schemes of arrangement. Amongst those changes, the reform has lowered the majorities required to achieve a Spanish scheme. Currently, a majority of at least 51% of the financial liabilities held by all creditors at the time of the refinancing agreement (acuerdo de refinanciación) approval, will suffice to request the insolvency judge to sanction the agreement, so it is considered ringfenced and protected from any challenge for rescission.
Finds Bankruptcy Court to be Proper Forum for Claim Objection Despite Forum Selection Clauses in Investor Agreements
The Southern District of New York recently reiterated the critical difference between creditor claims and equity interests in the bankruptcy context. In a recent opinion arising out of the Arcapita Bank bankruptcy case, the Court was faced with an objection to a proof of claim filed by an investor, Captain Hani Alsohaibi, who characterized his right to recovery against the debtors as being based on a “corporate investment.”
On June 4, 2014, the New York Court of Appeals will hear arguments arising from the bankruptcies of two law firms—Thelen and Coudert Brothers—as to whether the former partners of the bankrupt law firms must turn over profits earned on billable-hour client matters they brought to their new firms.
For insolvency purposes, the concept of “group” is defined in article 42 of the Spanish Commercial Code, which refers only to groups subject to control that have the legal obligation to consolidate their accounts, while excluding horizontal or co-ordinated groups.3
Assignment of a credit with recourse transfers ownership of the credit to the assignee when the transfer is approved and allows the assignee to request that it is separated from the assignor’s insolvency assets.
In both rulings, the Supreme Court stated the effects of assignment of a credit with recourse on the assignor’s declaration of insolvency.
Royal decree-law 4/2014, on urgent measures for refinancing and restructuring corporate debt: amends the Insolvency Act and the exemption on mandatory takeover bids for rescue operations, and extends the special regime for calculating losses due tue impairment