Suppose you were a German bank lending to a Spanish debtor under a loan agreement governed by German law. Once your Spanish debtor stops paying, the bank would have to obtain a German legal judgment and would then have to enforce it in Spain. Any measure to secure the debtor's assets in the meantime, is typically subject to the jurisdiction where the asset is located, or subject to lengthy recognition proceedings. Having to resort to local law measures usually puts foreign creditors in a worse-off position than local ones.

Fraudulent debtors are trying to use a disputable interpretation of Article 37, para 4 of the Special Pledges Act on the outcome of enforcement over a special pledge against the rights of secured mortgage creditors.

The Bulgarian legislator is notorious for leaving gaps in enacted legislation. Often such legal gaps combined with inexperience, or even worse – corruption of judges, lead to questionable judgments being handed down. Several of these judgments have put mortgage creditors at risk of losing their collateral in the past year.

In December 2013, the Bank of Slovenia adopted exceptional measures resulting in the annulment of financial instruments held by shareholders and subordinated bondholders for the purpose of burden-sharing in rescuing five Slovenian banks.1 In its decision of 19 July 2016, the European Court of Justice confirmed that such burden-sharing is not contrary to EU law; however, the Slovenian public remains divided.

Since the European Commission adopted the recommendation on restructuring and second chance in 2014, it has been working on the evaluation of its initiative and the introduction of a European legal framework. In 2015 the Capital Markets Union Action Plan included the announcement of a legislative initiative on early restructuring and second chance. Finally, on 22 November 2016, the European Commission published its proposal for a European Directive on preventive restructuring frameworks and a second chance for entrepreneurs.

Copyrighting their names, “signing” with red thumbprints – we’ve seen some unusual court filings from unique individuals. But one person has apparently gone too far.

It can be incredibly frustrating for a lender when a borrower defaults on a loan and asserts frivolous defenses in response. A group of individuals who call themselves “sovereign citizens” or “sovereign freemen” often makes lawsuits quite tedious by refusing to recognize the authority of the courts or the government, or claiming that the loan is invalid because it is based on “vapor money.”

Excalibur had been in run-off status since 2003, and under regulatory supervision since at least 2013. A Pennsylvania court has now placed Excalibur into liquidation based on three grounds: (1) insolvency – Excalibur’s admitted assets did not exceed its liabilities plus the greater of its capital and required surplus or capital stock; (2) Excalibur’s total adjusted capital was less than its mandatory control level risk-based capital; and (3) Excalibur’s board of directors and sole shareholder consented to liquidation.

REAL PROPERTY UPDATE

An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, after being ordered to mediation a second time by the appellate panel, the parties reached a settlement contingent on the district court’s vacating its orders on summary judgment and attorney’s fees.

Chapter 15 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 1501 et seq., provides the legal framework by which U.S. bankruptcy courts recognize foreign insolvency proceedings of companies that have assets and operations in more than one country. Congress added Chapter 15 to the Bankruptcy Code with the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Like any new law, the application and limits of Chapter 15 are developing through jurisprudence.

This appeal is from an order by a district court in California, affirming a bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee’s adversary proceeding, in which the trustee sought avoidance of fraudulent transfers.