In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.

In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency:

If an agency agreement is resolved due to the agent being declared insolvent, the business owner must compensate the agent for clientele if the requirements under the Agency Act are met (the agent brought new clients or clearly increased transactions with existing clients, and the previous activity is still beneficial for the business owner). 

In its writ dated February 2, 2016, the First Instance Civil Court No. 38 of Barcelona raised a preliminary issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that writ, it requested the EU court to determine whether the business practice of assigning or buying credits without offering consumers the possibility to settle the debt by paying the assignee the outstanding amount is in line with EU law.

In a prior post, we set forth the potential liability of employers for collection of debts owed by employees in violation of the bankruptcy stay. To protect themselves from such liability, employers that accrue claims against their employees in the ordinary course of business should implement written protocols designed in consultation with bankruptcy counsel.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) safe harbors do not prevent a liquidation trust from pursuing some state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims assigned to the trust by creditors.1 Notably, the Bankruptcy Court declined to follow the Second Circuit's recent Tribune decision, in which the Second Circuit concluded that the Section 546(e) safe harbors apply to state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims on federal preemption grounds.2 Instead, the Bankruptcy Court decided that federal preemption did not appl

In a highly anticipated decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Court") on June 28, 2016, dismissed Counts I through XIX of Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.'s ("LBSF") fourth amended complaint (the "Complaint") in Lehman Bros. Special Fin. Inc. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al.1 In doing so, the Court removed the majority of the approximately 250 noteholder, issuer and indenture trustee defendants from the LBSF lawsuit to recover over $1 billion distributed in connection with 44 swap transactions.

Businesses need to have written protocols in place to deal with bankruptcy filings by their employees and independent contractors, or they risk serious sanctions and, potentially, punitive damages for violations of the bankruptcy laws. Consider two examples.

The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the "Federal Reserve") recently issued a proposed rule (the "Proposed Rule") that would significantly limit derivative counterparty remedies upon the insolvency of US global systematically important banking organizations ("GSIB") and their affiliates and the US operations of foreign GSIBs (collectively, "Covered Entities").

Since April, two bankruptcy courts have refused to enforce limited liability company ("LLC") agreement provisions requiring the respective LLCs to obtain the unanimous consent of their members in order to seek bankruptcy relief.1 On June 3, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the "Delaware Bankruptcy Court") relied on federal public policy to invalidate an LLC agreement provision requiring unanimous member consent to file bankruptcy where the member at issue owed no fiduciary duties to the LLC and the member's primary relationship to the