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) :
Judgment of the Supreme Court of Justice of 20-03-2014 Standardization of Jurisprudence – Insolvency Proceedings – Right of Retention
A bankrupt trustee has been unsuccessful in trying to recover property of a former bankrupt more than 20 years after the date of bankruptcy. The decision of the Federal Court reinforces the limitation period in which a trustee can make a claim on any property of the bankrupt as outlined in Section 127(1) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) (Act)
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.
Stewart v Atco Controls Pty Ltd (in Liquidation) [2014] HCA 15
The High Court this week reinforced the significance and standing of a Liquidator's equitable lien for his or her costs and expenses incurred in realising assets of a company in liquidation, as first clearly espoused by Justice Dixon in the 1933 case of Universal Distributing. Gadens acted for the successful Liquidator/Appellant in the unanimous judgment of the five High Court Justices.
The Principle
For insolvency purposes, the concept of “group” is defined in article 42 of the Spanish Commercial Code, which refers only to groups subject to control that have the legal obligation to consolidate their accounts, while excluding horizontal or co-ordinated groups.3
Assignment of a credit with recourse transfers ownership of the credit to the assignee when the transfer is approved and allows the assignee to request that it is separated from the assignor’s insolvency assets.
In both rulings, the Supreme Court stated the effects of assignment of a credit with recourse on the assignor’s declaration of insolvency.
Royal decree-law 4/2014, on urgent measures for refinancing and restructuring corporate debt: amends the Insolvency Act and the exemption on mandatory takeover bids for rescue operations, and extends the special regime for calculating losses due tue impairment