Foreign companies seeking to protect their overseas assets from their creditors have often turned to the United States for immediate relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Establishing jurisdiction in the US for purposes of a bankruptcy filing has proved easy – the establishment of a nominal professional fees retainer with a local law firm on the eve of a bankruptcy filing will suffice.
Earlier this year, Mexican airline, Grupo Aeromexico, S.A.B. de C.V. (together with its affiliates, the “Debtors”) announced that their creditor body had overwhelmingly voted to approve their proposed Chapter 11 restructuring plan (the “Plan”) save for one class of unsecured creditor claims that voted to reject the Plan. Those claims were held by Invictus Global Management, LLC (“Invictus”), a distressed investment fund that recently purchased the claims subject to a “plan support provision” which purportedly compelled the claimholder to support the Debtors’ Plan.
The merchant cash advance (“MCA”) industry recently provided two different bankruptcy courts with an opportunity to consider the characterization of MCA funding transactions as either “true sales” of receivables or “disguised loans”.
Foi publicada em Diário da República a Lei n.º 9/2022, de 11 de janeiro, que veio estabelecer medidas de apoio e agilização dos processos de reestruturação das empresas e dos acordos de pagamento, transpor a Diretiva (UE) 2019/1023, do Parlamento Europeu e do Conselho, de 20 de junho de 2019, e alterar o Código da Insolvência e da Recuperação de Empresas (
The practice of granting third party releases in bankruptcy was recently dealt another blow by the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In Patterson et. al. v. Mahwah Bergen Retail Group, Inc., Civil No. 3:21cv167 (DJN), the District Court found that the lower bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to both rule on certain of the claims covered by the third-party releases at issue and, it follows, to confirm the debtors’ plan of reorganization.
Analizamos las principales novedades introducidas en el Proyecto de Ley de reforma del texto refundido de la Ley Concursal, recientemente publicado en el Boletín de las Cortes. Ofrecemos, además, un documento comparativo en el que mostramos todos los cambios que incorpora el texto respecto del anteproyecto inicial publicado el pasado mes de agosto.
The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently expressed its view regarding the reach of the “solvent debtor exception” in In re The Hertz Corp., et al. The solvent debtor exception is an equitable doctrine which supports the proposition that creditors are entitled to the full suite of their contractual rights if the debtor in bankruptcy is solvent.
Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia with relatively few variations, sets out, among other things, the rules to be followed when obtaining a security interest in personal property collateral to secure a loan. The basic premise of Article 9 is that if the lender follows the rules, it should be protected against third parties, including other creditors or a bankruptcy trustee, who would seek to challenge the lender’s security interest or the priority of the security interest.
El Consejo de Ministros ha acordado extender el plazo de solicitud de la financiación avaladapor el Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), CESCE o CERSA (la financiación avalada), así como elevar los umbrales económicos relativos a la refinanciación de la misma, trasladando dichas modificaciones al Código de Buenas Prácticas.
In its much-discussed decision, City of Chicago v. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. 585 (2020), the Supreme Court ruled that the City of Chicago (“City”) was not in violation of Section 362(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code for failing to release an impounded car to a debtor in bankruptcy.