On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).
Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.
On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.
The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.
La Sentencia del 11 de julio de 2018 consolida la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo que reconoce la existencia de un grupo de sociedades cuando el control es ejercido por una persona física.
Bankruptcy
Legal Alert
Authors
George P. Angelich Partner New York, NY 212.457.5423 [email protected]
M. Douglas Flahaut Counsel Los Angeles, CA 213.443.7559 [email protected]
On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.
La reciente Sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del TS de 26 de abril de 2018 analiza una cesión en pago realizada justo antes de la declaración de concurso. Atendiendo a las circunstancias concretas del caso (quita del 50% del crédito cancelado; acreedor sin vinculación ni condición especial; convenio posterior con quita similar), el Supremo considera que no procede rescindir la operación.
El Tribunal Supremo considera que la falta de legitimación para recurrir de una concursada en liquidación fue subsanada con la ratificación posterior de su administración concursal.
La sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo de 23 de mayo de 2018 (Ponente Ignacio Sancho Gargallo) analiza el papel de la concursada en liquidación y de la administración concursal a la hora de interponer recursos en procedimientos en trámite antes de la declaración de concurso y apertura de la fase de liquidación.
On June 20, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision sustaining the debtors’ objection to the proof of claim filed by Contrarian Funds, LLC.