In homologated refinancing agreements

Successor liability is often a concern for the acquirer when purchasing substantially all of a seller’s assets.  While this risk is well known, the circumstances under which an acquirer will be found liable under the theory of successor liability are less clear.  The recent decision in Call Center Techs., Inc. v Grand Adventures Tour & Travel Pub. Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. Lexis 29057, 2014 WL 85934 (D. Conn. 2014), sheds helpful light on this issue by defining the continuity of enterprise theory of successor liability.

El Real Decreto-ley 11/2013, de 2 de agosto, para la protección de los trabajadores a tiempo parcial y otras medidas urgentes en el orden económico y social, albergó diversas disposiciones de tipo so- cio-laboral, algunas de ellas referidas a reestructu- raciones laborales en empresas concursadas.

Approach

Approach

Art. 172 IA determines  the  pronouncements the at-fault classification ruling must contain, judicial pronouncements that constitute true civil penalties.¹

Thus, after classifying the insolvency proceedings as at-fault, the people affected by the classification and the accomplices, on whom the orders will fall, have to be determined. Then, arts. 172 and 172 bis IA establish that the judgment must order:

This paper is essentially a commentary on the changes introduced by Royal Decree Act (Order in Council) 4/2014 in respect of applications for clawback (avoidance) orders against or within refinancing agreements.

1. Non-homologated qualified majority refinancing agreements

Arbitrary differences

Law360, New York (March 25, 2014, 1:21 PM ET) -- On Feb. 11, the three private plaintiff-appellants and 11 state plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring et al. v. Jacob J. Lew et al. filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their appeal of the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).

En los acuerdos de refinanciación homologados 1. Según el apartado 2 de la DA 4ª, a los efectos de la presente disposición se entenderá por “valor de la garantía real” de que goce cada acreedor el resultante de deducir, de los nueve décimos del valor razonable del bien sobre el que esté constituida dicha garantía, las deudas pendientes que gocen de garantía preferente sobre el mismo bien, sin que en ningún caso el valor de la garantía pueda ser inferior a cero ni superior al valor del crédito del acreedor correspondiente. Alcance 2.

On Feb. 11, the three private plaintiff- appellants and 11 state plaintiff-appellants in State National Bank of Big Spring et al. v. Jacob J. Lew et al. filed briefs with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in their appeal of the district court’s decision that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge certain provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. No. 111-203, 124 Stat. 1376 (2010).