(Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil número 1 de San Sebastián, de 19 de noviembre de 2013).

Este auto afirma la competencia del Juzgado de lo mercantil de San Sebastián para declarar la apertura del concurso de la sociedad Fagormastercook SA con domicilio social en Wroclaw (Polonia). La concursada es filial de Fagor Electrodomésticos S. Coop., cuya solicitud de concurso había tenido entrada en el mismo juzgado, si bien en la fecha del auto estaba pendiente de declaración.

Act 26/2013, passed on 27 December 2013 and published in the Official Journal of Spain on 28 December 2013 has amended the provisions of the Spanish Insolvency Act (the “SIA”) related to out-of-court restructuring. In particular Act 26/2013 modifies the 4th Additional Disposition of the SIA which allows to, upon certain circumstances, force extensions to dissident financial creditors in Spanish restructurings through the intervention of a Court (hereinafter, the “Court Homologation”).

TheLehman Brothers bankruptcy court has determined that the contractually specified methodology for conducting the liquidation of a swap agreement is protected by the safe harbor provisions of the bankruptcy, even if the selected methodology would be more favorable to the non-defaulting counterparty than the liquidation methodology that would apply absent the bankruptcy.See Michigan State Housing Dev. Auth. v. Lehman Bros. Deriv. Prods. Inc. (In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc.), No. 08-13555, ---B.R.

1. La venta de la unidad productiva de las sociedades en concurso ha devenido en la actualidad un fenómeno habitual en los Juzgados Mercantiles, en especial de los de Cataluña que cuentan con el apoyo expreso de la Direcció General d´Industria de la Generalitat de Cataluña.

Esta solución concursal permite continuar con la actividad empresarial, asegura el mantenimiento de los puestos de trabajo y evita la destrucción del tejido empresarial.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently held that a state’s post-confirmation investigation of a debtor’s post-confirmation conduct does not violate a plan confirmation order that enjoins actions against the debtor.  In re Velo Holdings, Inc. et al., 500 B.R. 693 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013).

This paper intends to briefly describe the amendment to article 36(4)(h) of the Restructuring and Resolution of Credit Institutions Act 9/2012 (“Act 9/2012”), introduced by Royal Decree Act 14/2013, passed on 29 November 2013 and published in the Official Journal of Spain on 30 November 2013 (the “Amendment”).

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) affirmed¹ the bankruptcy court’s decision in In re KB Toys, Inc.,² and held that a claim that is subject to disallowance under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code in the hands of the original claimant is similarly disallowable when that claim is held by a subsequent transferee because the section is applicable to “claims” rather than “claimants.” This holding is in contrast to a prior decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York in

1. Introduction

This paper intends to briefly describe the amendment to the Spanish Insolvency Act (“SIA”) approved by the Spanish Parliament on 19 September 2013 (the “Amendment”). Within the Amendment, we want to highlight two issues: (i) the changes introduced in Court homologation proceedings (see definition below), and (ii) the newly introduced out-of-court settlement procedure.

This week, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Asbestos Bankruptcy Trust Transparency Bill. The legislation would, if enacted into law, require bankruptcy trusts to file quarterly reports with bankruptcy courts disclosing the names, asbestos-related exposure history, and basis of the victim’s claims for each claimant. These reports would be made available on the courts’ public dockets. Confidential medical records or social security information would not be disclosed.

In an adversary proceeding filed in the American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc. bankruptcy case, the Delaware bankruptcy court affirmed that triangular setoffs are not allowed under the Bankruptcy Code and cannot be modified by contract or under the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provision. In re American Home Mortgage Holdings, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 11-51851 (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 8, 2013). Two contracts were at issue – a swap agreement between a bank and American Home Mortgage Investment Corp.