"The Parent Bank entered into this insurance contract with its eyes wide open and its wallet on its mind."

The Supreme Court of the United States inMidland v. Johnson reversed the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and held that a debt collector that files a proof of claim for debt that is barred by the applicable statute of limitations does not violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) if the face of the proof of claim makes clear that the statute of limitations has run. The Supreme Court refused to accept the debtor's argument that Midland's proof of claim was "false, deceptive, or misleading" under the FDCPA.

In two recent decisions, both the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Fourth Circuit) and the Fifth Circuit (Fifth Circuit) concluded that certain orders entered in bankruptcy cases could not be grounds for invocation of res judicata with regard to proofs of claim that are deemed allowed. Both addressed the plain language of Section 502(a) of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) in conjunction with relevant Bankruptcy Rules and Official Forms, and congressional intent.

On March 9, 2017, a bankruptcy court in New York became the latest to weigh in on the developing circuit court split regarding whether modification of mortgages should be permitted under 11 U.S.C.

 CONTENTS CORPORATE LAW NEWSLETTER I MARCH, 2017 I CAPITALIZAR PROGRAMME – PRESS RELEASE FROM THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF 16 MARCH 2017 2 II NATIONAL LEGISLATION 5 III NATIONAL CASE LAW 6 NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE WWW.CUATRECASAS.COM NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE 2/7 NEWSLETTER CORPORATE LAW I CAPITALIZAR PROGRAMME – PRESS RELEASE FROM THE COUNCIL OF MINISTERS OF 16 MARCH 2017 One of the priorities of the programme of the 21st Constitutional Government is to reduce the high level of corporate borrowing and to improve conditions for investment, which is why the capitalisation of companies is one

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the District Court) recently issued an opinion in the Paul Sagendorph bankruptcy case reversing the Bankruptcy Court's holding that a debtor can force a secured creditor to take title to its collateral in complete satisfaction of the creditor's secured claim.1 In reversing the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, the District Court held that the plain language of Sections 1322(b)(9) and 1325(a)(5)(C)2 does not empower a debtor to force a secured creditor to accept title to its collateral over that creditor's objection.3

Comsa: debt restructuring PSA Financial Services Spain: establishing an asset-backed securities fund Emesa: subscribing a collar equity swap Proposal for an EU Directive on restructuring and second chance Exit right due to no dividend distribution: end of the suspension of art.

Section 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (the "TIA") states the right of a bondholder to receive payments pursuant to an indenture security cannot be "impaired or affected without the consent of such holder." Historically, issuers and bondholders have not engaged in extensive litigation based on the argument that Section 316(b) provides a broad restriction protecting bondholders' substantive right to actually receive such payments.

I CORPORATE FINANCE, COVENANTS AND CREDITOR’S LIABILITY 2 II NATIONAL LEGISLATION 4 III EUROPEAN LEGISLATION 5 IV NATIONAL CASE LAW 5 NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE LAW WWW.CUATRECASAS.COM NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE LAW 2/6 CORPORATE LAW NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE FINANCE, COVENANTS AND CREDITOR’S LIABILITY Introduction In the field of corporate finance the liability of creditors that negotiate covenants with companies is an issue that currently generates great concern.

Supreme Administrative

Court Judgement of October 12, 2016

Case no. 0797/15

In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that expenses related to employees, recorded as remuneration, salaries or wages, relevant to the limit of 15% foreseen for acceptance of the expenses with social benefits referred to in Article 43.2 of the CIT Code, are not limited to those that were subject to mandatory Social Security contributions.

South Central Administrative Court

Judgement of October 13, 2016