Three years ago, in Stern v.
Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the Southern District of New York last week ruled that the U.S. Bankruptcy Code does not permit a bankruptcy trustee to recover foreign transfers. Specifically, Judge Rakoff refused to allow Irving Picard, the trustee of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“BLMIS”), to recoup monies initially transferred from BLMIS to non-U.S.
Exposición de la doctrina de la rescisión aislada del derecho de garantía 1. Establece el art. 73 LCon que (1) la sentencia que estime la acción (rescisoria) declarará la ineficacia del acto impugnado y condenará a la restitución de las prestaciones objeto de aquél (…). (3) El derecho a la prestación que resulte a favor de cualquiera de los demandados como consecuencia de la rescisión tendrá la consideración de crédito contra la masa, que habrá de satisfacerse simultáneamente a la reintegración de los bienes (…). 2.
The fourth additional provision of the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) provides for homologation (court sanctioning) of a refinancing agreement signed by creditors representing at least 51 per cent of financial liabilities whilst meeting certain conditions set out in article 71 bis at the time of adoption of said agreement.
La Sentencia del Tribunal General del TJUE de 8 de abril de 2014 (asunto T-319/11), resuelve el re- curso de anulación parcial interpuesto por ABN Amro Group NV contra la Decisión 2011/823/UE, de la Comisión, que le impuso la prohibición de adquirir empresas de cualquier sector como una de las condiciones para considerar compatible con el mercado interior la ayuda pública que recibió del Estado holandés. La entidad ABN Amro había recibido ayuda pública para su recapitalización de entre 4.200 y 5.450 millones de euros, así como una ayuda de liquidez de 7.170 millones de euros.
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, limited somewhat the ramifications of its landmark opinion two years ago in Stern v.
The Portuguese Official Journal (Diário da República) published last 30 May Act no. 32/2014, approving the new pre-enforcement out-of-court procedure.
The above referred procedure will come into force on 1st September 2014 and will be available to creditors with enforceable instruments that may be relied on in summary enforcement proceedings (judgments, orders for payment and extrajudicial instruments regarding overdue pecuniary obligations).
A recent ruling in the Chapter 11 case of Free Lance-Star Publishing limited the credit bidding rights of a secured creditor. The ruling has called into question the ability of the holder of secured debt to utilize such debt to acquire companies on a going concern basis in bankruptcy cases, particularly in instances where the debt was acquired at a discount for such expr
According to its Explanatory Notes, RD Act (Order in Council) 4/2014, of 7 March, adopting urgent measures on business debt refinancing and restructuring, aims to facilitate the financial repair and recovery of companies facing an economic crisis. To this end, a set of rules varying in scope and significance have been laid down, which I here discuss with regards to the treatment reserved to loans granted under refinancing agreements - as provided by the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA) - and their signatory creditors.
This paper sets out to make some considerations on the position of creditors holding real security (security in rem) within para-insolvency and insolvency refinancing procedures introduced or modified by Royal Decree Act (Order in Council) 4/2012 adopting urgent measures on business debt refinancing and restructuring. I will avoid the new scope of the avoidance of preinsolvency transactions under arts. 71 bis and 72 of the Spanish Insolvency Act (IA), which will be the subject of a subsequent paper. Nor will the calculation of the “value of (real) security” be discussed here.