Lender's Security Interest in Funds Lost Upon Transfer to Debtor's Counsel

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.

Imagine that while a bankruptcy case is pending, the debtor-in-possession or bankruptcy trustee files a state law claim against one of the estate's creditors. Presumably, if the debtor wins its state law claim, that recovery augments the bankruptcy estate and increases the amount available to pay the debtor's creditors.[1] The creditor, seeking to avoid litigating the action in the debtor's home state court, timely removes the lawsuit to federal court as permitted under 28 U.S.C.

In an order issued today, Judge Dalton of the Middle District of Florida held that in a non-bankruptcy context, allegations that collection of a mortgage debt is barred by the statute of limitations do not form a “plausible basis” for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, or the Declaratory Judgment Act.

On November 21, 2016, in a case entitled In re Monson,1 the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Bankruptcy Court's decision,2 which held that a debtor's conduct constituted a willful and malicious injury to a creditor within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(6), because the debtor injured the creditor's right to recover its loan, the injury was intended, and the debtor was conscious of his wrongdoing. Thus, the debt was nondischargeable under 523(a)(6).

Exceptions to the Dischargeability of Debt under Section 523 of the Bankruptcy Code

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.

The Bankruptcy Code gives a trustee the power to avoid pre-petition fraudulent and preference transfers made by a debtor, except that a trustee may not avoid a transfer that is "made by or to (or for the benefit of)" a party enumerated in 546(e) of the Code "in connection with a securities contract." Although 546(e) has been applied in various circumstances, there is little court guidance on whether 546(e) protects transfers made to repay commercial mortgage-backed securities ("CMBS") loans. One case in particular has applied 546(e) to dismiss such an avoidance action: Krol v.

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: