Case Summary

This case presents a common scenario and dynamic that a party involved with a distressed bank holding company may have seen in the last several years.

Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 1 July 2014 

This judgment concludes that the Insolvency Plan is an alternative corporate recovery  measure which aims to satisfy the interests of the creditors, which applies  indiscriminately to natural and to legal persons. When the insolvent is a natural person,  the fact that the liquidation of its assets within the insolvency proceedings took place  without the full payment of the claims, is still not enough to declare the release of the  debtor.

On 27 July 2014, the Regulation (UE) n.º 655/2014, of the European Parliament and of  the Council (the “Regulation”), establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure to facilitate cross-border debt recovery in civil and commercial matters was  published.

Many indentures contain “make-whole provisions,” which protect a noteholder’s right to receive bargained-for interest payments by requiring compensation for lost interest when accrued principal and interest are paid early. Make-whole provisions permit a borrower to redeem or repay notes before maturity, but require the borrower to make a payment that is calculated to compensate noteholders for a loss of expected interest payments.

INTRODUCTION

In an opinion filed on July 3, 2014, in the case of In re Lower Bucks Hospital, et al., Case No. 10-10239 (ELF), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Bankruptcy Court), which denied approval of third-party releases benefitting The Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A., in its capacity as indenture trustee (BNYM, or the Trustee).

Financial institutions are not de facto directors of the insolvent company because they do not significantly affect the performance of the insolvent company’s activity, but only ensure that  certain costs do not affect the repayment of their loan.

The extension of the term for the delivery of works not authorized by the guarantor that had secured  the penalty for delay does not  harm it and, therefore, the guarantee is not  extinguished;  any increase in the  penalty agreed does not extinguish the guarantee,  but  cannot be enforceable on the guarantor that will be liable in the terms agreed in the initial  agreement. This decision discussed the effects  on the guarantee of  the novation of the  secured  obligation agreed without the guarantor’s knowledge.

The rescission was declared of a mortgage the insolvent company  granted over a  warehouse it owned in guarantee of the  loan a credit institution  had  granted to a company of its group. The Supreme Court declared (i) that the contextual guarantee was  for consideration and (ii) the need for proof of the profit (even indirect) of the guarantor  company without merely belonging to the  group sufficing, and  confirmed that the  rescission only affected the guarantee and not the loan.

SUPREME COURT RULING OF APRIL 9, 2014, NO. 175/2014: IN THE RESCISSION OF THE  ASSIGNMENT IN PAYMENT AGREEMENT (DACIÓN EN PAGO), THE CREDIT OF THE NONDEFAULTING PARTY  IS AN  INSOLVENCY CLAIM AND NOT AGAINST THE INSOLVENCY ESTATE

The assignment in payment (dación en pago) of debt is an act extinguishing obligations and not a bilateral agreement. Therefore, its rescission leads to an insolvency claim for  the non-defaulting party.