(ORDONNANCE Nº 2014-326 DU 12 MARS 2014 ET DÉCRET NO 2014-736 DU 30 JUIN 2014)
La nouvelle ordonnance nº 2014-326 du 12 mars 2014 modifie avec environ 120 articles essentiellement insérés dans le Code de Commerce, le régime des entreprises en difficulté. Un décret d’application publié le 30 juin 2014 a précisé les détails de ce texte.
Nous exposons ici quelques points principaux de la réforme (liste non exhaustive) :
In a decision released on June 25, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that ASARCO LLC could not maintain CERCLA cost recovery actions against the trustees of residuary trusts created by the will of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. ASARCO, as part of its emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy, paid the US, the State of Washington, and the Port of Everett, Washington $50.2 million to settle pending CERCLA claims at two Superfund sites in Washington State.
A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20-03-2014 Standardization of Jurisprudence – Insolvency Proceedings – Right of Retention
A recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington found that certain distressed debt funds were not “financial institutions” under the definition of “Eligible Assignee” in the applicable loan agreement and thus were not entitled to vote on the debtor’s chapter 11 plan of reorganization. The District Court decision affirmed a bankruptcy court decision enjoining loan assignments to the funds and recently denied the funds’ motion to vacate the decision.”1
Spanish Royal Decree-Law 4/2014, passed on March 7 2014, has considerably changed the rules for the court-sanctioning of so-called Spanish schemes of arrangement. Amongst those changes, the reform has lowered the majorities required to achieve a Spanish scheme. Currently, a majority of at least 51% of the financial liabilities held by all creditors at the time of the refinancing agreement (acuerdo de refinanciación) approval, will suffice to request the insolvency judge to sanction the agreement, so it is considered ringfenced and protected from any challenge for rescission.
In a novel decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held, in its ruling In re Emoral, Inc., 740 F.3d 875 (3d Cir. 2014), that personal injury claims of individuals allegedly harmed by a bankrupt debtor’s products cannot be asserted against a pre-petition purchaser of the debtor’s assets, as they are “generalized claims” which belong to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate rather than to the individuals who suffered the harm.
Background
For insolvency purposes, the concept of “group” is defined in article 42 of the Spanish Commercial Code, which refers only to groups subject to control that have the legal obligation to consolidate their accounts, while excluding horizontal or co-ordinated groups.3
Assignment of a credit with recourse transfers ownership of the credit to the assignee when the transfer is approved and allows the assignee to request that it is separated from the assignor’s insolvency assets.
In both rulings, the Supreme Court stated the effects of assignment of a credit with recourse on the assignor’s declaration of insolvency.
Royal decree-law 4/2014, on urgent measures for refinancing and restructuring corporate debt: amends the Insolvency Act and the exemption on mandatory takeover bids for rescue operations, and extends the special regime for calculating losses due tue impairment