It is fair to say that not many, if any, banks have internal controls or policies and procedures to identify and mitigate deficiencies in the bankruptcy practices of banks. Indeed, banks typically rely on their Legal Department or external counsel to make sure banks protect their interests when bank customers file bankruptcy. While the Compliance Department and the Risk Management Department track compliance and risks related to numerous laws, rules and regulations, the Bankruptcy Code and its rules are typically not among those laws and rules.

In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding, 580 U.S. __(2017), decided on March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling reverses the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.

The financial crisis has brought significant regulatory changes for credit institutions, many of them aimed at strengthening their capital requirements and creating safety buffers to absorb losses and recapitalise unsound and failing institutions.

The latest is an instrument known as senior non-preferred debt, which is midway between senior debt and subordinated/Tier 2 debt. This instrument will not qualify as Tier 1 or Tier 2 capital, but will be eligible to compute for purposes of TLAC/MREL requirements and will be cheaper for banks than pure subordinated debt.

Siguen sin resolverse satisfactoriamente las cuestiones laborales y de la Seguridad Social en relación con la transmisión de unidad productiva en concurso.

The immediate effect of Jevic will be that practitioners may no longer structure dismissals in any manner that deviates from the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of impaired creditors.

In its recent decision in Pars Ram Brothers (Pte) Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) v Australian & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd and others [2017] SGHC 38, the Singapore High Court held that the security interests of lenders survived the commingling of assets, and that the assets should be divided among the secured lenders in proportion to their respective contributions.

Facts

La Dirección General de Tributos examina, en un contexto de consolidación fiscal, las consecuencias fiscales de una operación en virtud de la cual la entidad dominante condona los créditos que tiene sobre sus filiales, derechos adquiridos previamente por medio de una operación de reestructuración empresarial no acogida al régimen de neutralidad fiscal y registrados por un valor inferior a su nominal.

La Dirección General de Tributos examina algunas de las consecuencias que pueden derivarse de una operación de reestructuración empresarial a efectos de la constitución de la reserva de capitalización prevista en el artículo 25 de la Ley del Impuesto sobre Sociedades.

Las normas del Derecho rector de la filial en materia de grupos resultan, en principio, aplicables a la matriz aunque esta sea extranjera. No cabe descartar que, además, el Derecho rector de la matriz se aplique para imponer una responsabilidad por las instrucciones que perjudicaron a la filial, aunque el Derecho de ésta no contemple normas especiales al respecto.

The United States Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502(b)(6), caps a landlord's claim in bankruptcy for damages resulting from the termination of a real property lease. See In re PPI EnterprisesU.S., 324 F.3d 197, 207 (3rd Cir. 2003). Under Section 502(b)(6), a landlord-creditor is entitled to rent reserve from the greater of one lease year or 15 percent, not to exceed three years, of the remaining lease term.