The amendment to art. 90(1)(6) of the Insolvency Act 22/2003 (abbrev. LCON) by the Public Sector (Legal Regime) Act 40/2015 was welcomed almost enthusiastically by most market agents. It was felt that the inconsistent treatment bestowed on pledges of future claims (hereinafter, ‘PFC’) would finally be a thing of the past. I myself am not altogether convinced that this is the case, being able to envisage more than one way an insolvency judge, averse to this type of security interests, can dampen the aforementioned enthusiasm by way of a not overly absurd interpretation of the new provision.
Introduction
Recently, the British Virgin Islands has seen a trend wherein debtors involved in winding-up proceedings have sought to identify what appear to be spurious disputes and then to rely on arbitration clauses in order to strike out or stay the winding-up proceedings. While this tactic could be regarded as capitalising on the wider global trend towards giving absolute primacy to arbitration agreements, it is often deployed to buy time for debtors and frustrate creditors that are legitimately seeking to wind up insolvent companies.
Privilege bestowed on (syndicated) creditors instigating the insolvency proceedings against the debtor
Preamble
Equality among all creditors (the so-called par conditio creditorum) is a basic principle under Spanish insolvency rules. Only specific exceptions envisaged in the Spanish insolvency law allow for a particular creditor to take precedence over others in the recovery of its claims against the debtor.
Generally speaking, the following ranking applies to insolvency claims (excluding predeductible claims):
Análisis GA&P | Febrero 2016 1 N. de la C.: En las citas literales se ha rectificado en lo posible —sin afectar al sentido— la grafía de ciertos elementos (acentos, mayúsculas, símbolos, abreviaturas, cursivas...) para adecuarlos a las normas tipográficas utilizadas en el resto del texto. Ante las dificultades competenciales y materiales en asuntos derivados del concurso de acreedores, siempre resultan sumamente interesantes las conclusiones alcanzadas por jueces o magistrados especialistas en materia mercantil en sus diferentes reuniones periódicas.
Analysis GA&P | February 2016 1 Given the jurisdictional and material difficulties arising in the context of insolvency proceedings, the conclusions reached by judges specialised in corporate and commercial matters, in their various regular meetings, are invariably of tremendous interest. The recent conference held in Pamplona at the beginning of last November was no exception, particularly so, as far as this paper is concerned, in relation to the employment and Social Security aspects of a production unit transfer. As is well known, the referral of arts.
Insolvency law in the Cayman Islands is principally regulated by the Companies Law (2013) and the Companies Winding Up Rules 2008, which are supplemented by a wide body of case law. The following guidance is a summary only.
Under Cayman law, a company may be wound up on the basis of insolvency if it cannot pay its debts as they fall due. A company is treated as unable to pay its debts if:
It is known to everyone operating in the Spanish restructuring market that taking security to secure pre-existing indebtedness of a particular borrower is not a risk-free matter.
Introduction
El Reglamento 2015/848, del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, sobre procedimientos de insolvencia (texto refundido), sustituye al Reglamen- to 1346/2000 y se aplicará a los procedimientos de insolvencia que se abran después del 26 de junio del 2017 (DOUE L 141, de 5 de junio).
Regulation 2015/848 of the European Parliament and the Council on insolvency proceedings (recast) replaces Regulation 1346/2000 and shall apply to insolvency proceedings opened after 26 June 2017 (OJ L 141, 5 June).