Part 2: Amendments Affecting Mortgage Lenders and Landlords

As discussed in a previous post, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”), which was enacted on December 27, 2020 in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, amended numerous provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. This post discusses amendments specifically affecting landlords.

On December 27, 2020, in response to the economic distress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and to supplement the CARES Act enacted in March 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the “Act”) was enacted. In addition to providing $900 billion in pandemic relief, the Act benefits both debtors and creditors by temporarily modifying the following sections of the Bankruptcy Code, which may be of particular interest to creditors:

If a creditor is holding property of a party that files bankruptcy, is it “exercising control over” such property (and violating the automatic stay) by refusing the debtor’s turnover demands? According to the Supreme Court, the answer is no – instead, the stay under Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code only applies to affirmative acts that disturb the status quo as of the filing date. In other words, the mere retention of property of a debtor after the filing of a bankruptcy case does not violate the automatic stay.

El Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº10 de Barcelona, del pasado 29 de julio, ha permitido el nombramiento de un administrador antes del concurso para facilitar la venta de la unidad productiva antes de la declaración de concurso. Con ello, se ha permitido una medida equivalente al “pre-pack” anglosajón, favoreciendo una liquidación más eficiente y evitando incrementar el pasivo de la concursada.

On December 1, 2020, certain amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure take effect. The amendments largely modify rules governing bankruptcy appeals, but also impact Rules 2002 and 2004. The changes are as follows:

 In a decision published October 19, 2020, Judge Frank J. Bailey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts found that an Indian tribe was not subject to the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay.

Over the summer, we wrote about why health care companies may want to consider buying assets out of bankruptcy, taking advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (a “363 Sale”). We are back with our second post, to provide more detail to the process and discuss some pros and cons of 363 Sales.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently confirmed that bankruptcy plans need not always recognize subordination agreements among creditors.

This two-part blog series discusses why buyers looking to make strategic purchases in the health care industry might want to take advantage of the Bankruptcy Code Section 363 sale process (363 Sale) and the pros and cons of buying assets out of bankruptcy through a 363 Sale.

La jurisprudencia de la Sala de lo Civil del TS avala, con ciertos límites, las cláusulas de los convenios de acreedores en las que se prevé la pérdida del crédito de los acreedores que no comuniquen en un plazo determinado su número de cuenta bancaria. Una reciente sentencia de 2019 ha matizado el alcance tradicional de esta doctrina.