Mr Justice Snowden’s recent judgment sanctioning the Virgin Active restructuring plans is significant for several reasons. Not only is it the first judgment to consider the cram down power of the 2006 Companies Act, but it is only the third instance that the cross-class cram down mechanism has been used. It is also the first time it has been used to cram down classes of dissenting landlords.

Introduction

A fundamental tenet of bankruptcy law is that a debtor will have the ability to get a fresh start once it emerges. A company’s ability to discharge liabilities is among the primary drivers for seeking protection under chapter 11 and, thus, it is of no surprise that ensuring necessary steps are taken for a successful discharge is of utmost importance. Absent a successful discharge of prepetition claims, the reorganized debtor may be saddled with additional liabilities, reducing value for plan stakeholders. The recent Third Circuit unreported decision – Sweeney v.

Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de reestructuraciones e insolvencias.

Suspensión de la junta general extraordinaria hasta la designación y aceptación del cargo por la administración concursal

Auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil núm. 3 de Sevilla de 26 de febrero de 2021 (asunto “Abengoa”)

Selection of the main restructuring and insolvency judgments.

Suspension of special shareholders’ meeting until insolvency receiver’s appointment and acceptance of that appointment

Decision by Seville Commercial Court No 3 on February 26, 2021 (“Abengoa” case)

On January 22, 2021 Madrid's commercial court judges approved a set of agreed procedures for handling insolvency proceedings in which liquidation is requested together with the insolvency order, as well as a number of criteria for transfers of productive units in these and other insolvency processes.

El 22 de enero de 2021, los jueces mercantiles de Madrid aprobaron un conjunto de acuerdos para la tramitación de procedimientos de insolvencia en los que se solicita la liquidación junto a la declaración de concurso, así como una serie de criterios para la enajenación de unidades productivas en estos y otros procesos concursales.

Executive Summary

On March 15, 2021, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals (the “Third Circuit”) held that a stalking horse bidder may assert an administrative expense claim pursuant to section 503(b)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code for costs incurred in attempting to close on an unsuccessful transaction, even when the stalking horse bidder is not entitled to a breakup or termination fee.

Introduction

Bankruptcy courts often dismiss appeals of chapter 11 plans when granting the relief requested in the appeal would undermine the finality and reliability of the corresponding plans, a doctrine known as Equitable Mootness. Over the past several years, certain circuits criticized the doctrine for its lack of statutory basis and effect of avoiding review on the merits.¹