Two recent decisions may affect the assets of individuals available to satisfy creditors' claims in bankruptcy. In the first decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York determined that married, joint debtors received value in exchange for tuition payments and rejected the bankruptcy trustee's arguments that the tuition payments were fraudulent transfers.
The Cabinet has approved a Royal Decree Act (Order in Council) establishing urgent measures to expedite and streamline corporate refinancing and debt restructuring processes. In essence, these measures aim at ensuring the survival of companies that, notwithstanding the accumulation of excessive financial burden, are viable from an operational point of view through an orderly and balanced system of agreements with creditors and a wider range of refinancing options.
Recent developments in the bankruptcy arena have placed a greater burden on claimants. Creditors are now required to make additional disclosures in their proof of claim forms, and courts are under no obligation to recognize late-filed claims. Proposed changes to the Bankruptcy Rules, including an amendment slashing the time to file a proof of claim, highlight the need for creditors to exercise extra vigilance.
GREATER DISCLOSURE
On 31 December 2013, Banco de Portugal issued instruction no. 32/2013 implementing new rules on the identification and flagging of distress debt financing restructures (“Instruction 32/2013”) and revoking its instruction no.18/2012 on the same matter.
Instruction 32/2013 is applicable to credit institutions and to financial institutions with lending activity as well as branches of credit institutions with head offices outside the EU (“Institutions”).
- The sale of productive units of a company subject to insolvency proceedings has become common practice in the Commercial Courts, especially those of Catalonia, which have the express support of the Directorate General for Industry of the Regional Government of Catalonia.
This procedural solution allows companies to continue as a going concern, ensuring the maintenance of jobs and avoiding the destruction of the business landscape.
(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”).
- 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.
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”).
The Third Circuit recently held that claims purchased from trade creditors by a claims trader will be disallowed under section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code when the seller of the claim received, and did not repay, a preference. In doing so, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit expressed its disagreement with a relatively recent decision in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York which reached the opposite conclusion.