PROCEDURE INTERNATIONALE D’INSOLVABILITE

SEUL LE TRIBUNAL QUI OUVRE LA PROCEDURE PRINCIPALE A L’ENCONTRE D’UNE PERSONNE MORALE EST COMPETENT POUR PRONONCER UNE INTERDICTION DE GERER CONTRE LE DIRIGEANT DE CELLE-CI (CASS.COM. 22 JANVIER 2013 N°11-17.968 (N°55 F-PB), MAJOT C/ STE BECHERET- THIERRY-SENECHAL- GORRIAS ES. QUAL.)

On February 1, 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada (the “SCC”) released its long-awaited decision in Sun Indalex Finance, LLC v. United Steel Workers1 (“Indalex”). By a five to two majority, the SCC allowed the appeal from the 2011 decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal (the “OCA”) which had created so much uncertainty about the relative priorities of debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lending charges and pension claims in Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (the “CCAA”) proceedings.

The Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act¹ (the “CCAA”) is by far the most flexible Canadian law under which a corporation can restructure its business. When compared against theBankruptcy and Insolvency Act² (the “BIA”), the CCAA looks like a blank canvass and lends itself well to invention and mutual compromise.

The Madrid Provincial Court (Section 28) ruling of December 7, 2012, and the Barcelona Provincial Court (Section 15) ruling of October 4, 2012, judged the insolvency categorisation of a credit the receivers had categorised as subordinate because they held that the creditor company belonged to the same corporate group as the insolvent company.⁶ In both cases, the provincial courts analysed the concept of group for the purposes of insolvency before and after the reform of the Insolvency Act introduced under Act 38/2011.

The Supreme Court clarified the insolvency categorisation for interest rate swap contracts, classifying them as insolvency credits, as they fail to meet the functional synallagma requirement, which establishes functional reciprocal obligations.

Compensation of a debt made after the debtor’s bankruptcy declaration via the appropriation of securities pledged by virtue of a financial guarantee, is admitted.

The validity of a transaction assessed as “compensation” that was carried out after the bankruptcy declaration of the company in debt was questioned before the Supreme Court. The credit entity applied the value obtained from the reimbursement of an investment fund that had been pledged to secure a credit policy to reduce the debt.

JUDGEMENTS NO. 541/2012, OF OCTOBER 23, 2012, BY THE ZARAGOZA BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NOS. 413/2011, OF DECEMBER 19, AND 18/2012, OF JANUARY 18, BY THE BURGOS BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEALS, NO. 132/2012, OF APRIL 10, BY THE RULING OF THE VALENCIA BRANCH OF THE COURT OF APPEAL, AND NOS. 210/2012 AND 211/2012, BOTH OF JULY 20, BY THE ALICANTE COMMERCIAL COURT

Guarantees granted by a group company for securing a loan used to repay the insolvent party’s personal debts are detrimental to the insolvency estate. Article 10 of the Mortgage Market Act refers solely to mortgages that are already part of an issue of mortgage securities.

The Supreme Court sets a precedent regarding the bankruptcy classification of the credits arising from contracts with reciprocal obligations whose performance is ordered by the judge in the interest of the bankruptcy: these are credits against the bankrupt estate independently of when they are originated.

The Supreme Court rescinded a payment made to the creditor that petitioned for compulsory insolvency in a case where the creditor withdrew its petition and the debtor applied for voluntary bankruptcy several weeks later.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court made the following significant assertions in respect of insolvency rescission of payments: