Comsa: debt restructuring PSA Financial Services Spain: establishing an asset-backed securities fund Emesa: subscribing a collar equity swap Proposal for an EU Directive on restructuring and second chance Exit right due to no dividend distribution: end of the suspension of art.

Overview

In IBRC v Camden[1], the Court of Appeal held that a lender's express contractual power to market a loan was not subject to an implied limitation that doing so should not interfere with the borrower's ability to obtain the best price for the assets securing the loan. In so doing, the Court of Appeal reaffirmed the "cardinal rule" that an implied term must not contradict any express term of the agreement.

Background

On January 17, 2017, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled in favor of the defendant in Marblegate Asset Management, LLC v. Education Management Finance Corp.1, by vacating the decision of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "District Court") and finding that "Section 316(b) [of the Trust Indenture Act] prohibits only non-consensual amendments to an indenture’s core payment terms." This decision, combined with the recent ruling of the District Court in granting a motion to dismiss in Waxman v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc.

Indentures governing high yield and investment grade notes typically provide for a make-whole or other premium to be paid if the issuer redeems the underlying notes prior to maturity. The premiums are intended to compensate the investor for the loss of the bargained-for stream of income over a fixed period of time.[1] Generally, though, under New York law, a make-whole or other premium is not payable upon acceleration of notes after an event of default absent specific indenture language to the contrary.

I CORPORATE FINANCE, COVENANTS AND CREDITOR’S LIABILITY 2 II NATIONAL LEGISLATION 4 III EUROPEAN LEGISLATION 5 IV NATIONAL CASE LAW 5 NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE LAW WWW.CUATRECASAS.COM NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE LAW 2/6 CORPORATE LAW NEWSLETTER I CORPORATE FINANCE, COVENANTS AND CREDITOR’S LIABILITY Introduction In the field of corporate finance the liability of creditors that negotiate covenants with companies is an issue that currently generates great concern.

For the past decade, shipping companies in every sector have faced continuing challenges from, among other things, declining demand, low charter rates, and an oversupply of new and more modern vessels. These factors have eroded second-hand vessel values and caused financial distress and insolvency for many shipping companies, requiring out of court financial restructurings and, in some cases, U.S. bankruptcy filings.

Supreme Administrative

Court Judgement of October 12, 2016

Case no. 0797/15

In this Judgment, the Supreme Administrative Court concluded that expenses related to employees, recorded as remuneration, salaries or wages, relevant to the limit of 15% foreseen for acceptance of the expenses with social benefits referred to in Article 43.2 of the CIT Code, are not limited to those that were subject to mandatory Social Security contributions.

South Central Administrative Court

Judgement of October 13, 2016

In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.

In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency:

If an agency agreement is resolved due to the agent being declared insolvent, the business owner must compensate the agent for clientele if the requirements under the Agency Act are met (the agent brought new clients or clearly increased transactions with existing clients, and the previous activity is still beneficial for the business owner).