These resolutions clarify the circumstances in which an appraisal certificate is required to create and amend mortgages following the reform of the Rules of Civil Law Procedure under Act 1/2013.

If severe losses and insolvency occur, the directors’ duty to seek wind -up no longer applies if the company files for insolvency and is declared insolvent. While the composition is being carried out, the duty to seek wind-up and the directors’ resulting liability will not arise.

This ruling clarifies the role of the directors’ corporate duties in the event that legal grounds can be attributed to the company for wind-up due to losses, and the obligation to file for insolvency if the company becomes insolvent.

The Supreme Court reiterates the doctrine in its rulings of February 12 and 19, 2013, although in this case, unlike the above rulings, in which the credits were classified as insolvency credits, it concluded that instalments resulting from one finance lease agreement falling due after the declaration of insolvency are claims against the insolvency estate.

In 2011, the Spanish legislator introduced the court-sanctioned refinancing agreement (‘Spanish Scheme’) in the Spanish insolvency system. While the introduction of the Spanish Scheme has been praised for providing new tools for debtors to reorganise out-of-court while addressing the collective action problem, certain of its provisions have made this instrument too rigid and, thus, ineffective for tackling Spanish restructurings.

Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Porto of 05-12-2013

Contract Termination in Favor of the Insolvency Assets – Conditional Termination – Requirements – Bad Faith – Judicial Presumption

A recent decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has added an additional eligibility requirement for the filing of Chapter 15 cases. In Drawbridge Special Opportunities Fund LP v. Barnet (In re Barnet), ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 6482499 (2d Cir.

One of the effects of commercial globalization is that the bankruptcy filing of a debtor with transnational business relationships will sometimes result in a clash between the substantive bankruptcy laws of different countries.  A frequent question is whether the bankruptcy laws of a foreign country should be brought to bear upon creditors located in the United States, even where foreign bankruptcy law is at odds with the laws of the United States. 

In a decision that demonstrates the potentially broad impact of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Bellingham, the Fifth Circuit held that bankruptcy judges may not “determine” non-core matters even where the parties consent. BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. (In re BP RE, L.P.), No. 12-51270 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2013), see Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2880 (2013) (set for oral argument January 14, 2014).

Act 14/2013, of September 27, 2013, favoring entrepreneurs and their internationalization (the “Act”), introduces a wide range of reforms on insolvency, corporate, tax and labor matters. Regarding insolvencies, it takes a more flexible approach to the quorum of financial creditors required for court-sanctioned refinancing agreements and it regulates out-of-court agree-ments for payment as mechanisms for out-of-court negotiation with creditors.

REFINANCING AGREEMENTS

Adding to the split of authority that has developed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (Aug. 21, 2013), the 7th Circuit aligned with the 6th Circuit’s decision in Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012), to hold that a party may not consent or waive objection to the limited Constitutional authority of an Article I bankruptcy court.