A creditors’ composition agreement has been approved for Pescanova, and section six of the insolvency proceedings (categorisation of the insolvency) has not been opened, as there is a type of creditor whose moratorium is less than three years and whose debt relief is below one third.
GRANADA COMMERCIAL COURT NO. 1 RULING OF MARCH 17, 2014; LOGROÑO COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NO. 6 DECREE OF APRIL 25, 2014; BARCELONA COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE NO. 38 DECREE OF MAY 14, 2014; AND PONTEVEDRA COMMERCIAL COURT NO. 2 DECISION OF JUNE 6, 2014: FIRST DECISIONS ON THE SUSPENSION OF ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER ARTICLE 5 BIS OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT AFTER ROYAL DECREE-LAW 4/2014
BARCELONA PROVINCIAL COURT (DIVISION 15) RULING OF APRIL 3, 2014, NO.
116/2014, AND LA CORUNA PROVINCIAL COURT (DIVISION 4) RULING OF APRIL 22,
2014, NO. 118/2014: ARTICLE 90.1.6 OF THE INSOLVENCY ACT REFERS TO THE PLEDGE SECURING FUTURE CREDITS
Two new decisions on article 90.1.6 of the Insolvency Act coincide in stating that the last point of this precept refers to the pledge securing future credits, and not to the pledge over future credit rights.
(ORDONNANCE Nº 2014-326 DU 12 MARS 2014 ET DÉCRET NO 2014-736 DU 30 JUIN 2014)
La nouvelle ordonnance nº 2014-326 du 12 mars 2014 modifie avec environ 120 articles essentiellement insérés dans le Code de Commerce, le régime des entreprises en difficulté. Un décret d’application publié le 30 juin 2014 a précisé les détails de ce texte.
Nous exposons ici quelques points principaux de la réforme (liste non exhaustive) :
In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several questions that have confounded courts and lawyers for three years. Last week, the Supreme Court issued its first follow-up ruling, answering some of those questions and clarifying how bankruptcy courts are to handle so-called Stern claims. Despite that guidance, the opinion leaves several important questions unanswered.
As expected (and predicted), the bankruptcy judge in Dallas, Texas granted Mt. Gox’s request for an order of “recognition” that the debtor’s Tokyo insolvency action was a “foreign main proceeding.” She will also allow Mt. Gox’s bankruptcy trustee, Nobuaki Kobayahsi, to act as the “foreign representative” of the debtor in connection with whatever relief it might seek in the Chapter 15 case.
On June 18, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas will consider whether to grant recognition to the insolvency case pending in Tokyo. Based on the pleadings filed last week, it is a virtual certainty that the court will enter an order granting recognition.
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20-03-2014 Standardization of Jurisprudence – Insolvency Proceedings – Right of Retention
Spanish Royal Decree-Law 4/2014, passed on March 7 2014, has considerably changed the rules for the court-sanctioning of so-called Spanish schemes of arrangement. Amongst those changes, the reform has lowered the majorities required to achieve a Spanish scheme. Currently, a majority of at least 51% of the financial liabilities held by all creditors at the time of the refinancing agreement (acuerdo de refinanciación) approval, will suffice to request the insolvency judge to sanction the agreement, so it is considered ringfenced and protected from any challenge for rescission.
On May 21, the bankruptcy trustee for Mt. Gox advised depositors that the bankruptcy case in Tokyo was proceeding. The information contained in the email was limited in scope, guarded and of little use in understanding the trustee’s view of how the bankruptcy ultimately may resolve.