Aim of the Reform

On March 8, 2014, Spain enacted urgent measures to govern refinancing and restructuring of corporate debt ("RDl 4/2014"), modifying several provisions of the Spanish Insolvency Act (the "Act"). The objective of the reform is to improve the legal framework that governs refinancing agreements to remove obstacles that have previously impeded the successful execution of restructuring and refinancing transactions. 

Principal Amendments

On May 15, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision^[1]  in the much-watched litigation involving the residential construction company, TOUSA, Inc. ("TOUSA"). The decision reversed the prior decision of the District Court, ^[2] reinstating the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court.^[3]

Background

The devastating consequences of an enduring global recession for businesses and individuals alike have been writ large in headlines worldwide, as governments around the globe scramble to implement assistance programs designed to jumpstart stalled economies. Less visible amid the carnage wrought among the financial institutions, automakers, airlines, retailers, newspapers, homebuilders, homeowners, and suddenly laid-off workers is the plight of the nation's cities, towns, and other municipalities.

Global—On 10 January 2014, the US Supreme Court agreed to resolve a court split over the scope of discovery orders aimed at enforcing judgments against foreign states. In Argentina v. NML Capital, Ltd., No. 12-842, 2014 BL 7274 (Jan. 10, 2014), the Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari to hear an appeal stemming from Argentina's default on its government debt in 2001. Argentina restructured its defaulted debt in 2005 and 2010.

Indentures often contain make-whole premiums payable upon early redemption of the debt, and term B loan agreements often include "soft call" protection in the form of prepayment premiums during the early life of the loan. If the debt issuer becomes subject to a chapter 11 proceeding after the debt issuance, the question then arises as to how this payment obligation is to be treated: Does the make-whole or prepayment premium constitute unmatured interest due as a result of the debt acceleration, which would be disallowed, or is it liquidated damages?

One of the key protections afforded to secured creditors under the Bankruptcy Code is the right of a holder of a secured claim to credit bid the allowed amount of its claim as part of a sale process under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. Specifically, section 363(k) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that:

THE YEAR IN BANKRUPTCY: 2013
Charles M. Oellermann and Mark G. Douglas
The eyes of the financial world were on the U.S. during 2013. The view was dismaying
and encouraging in roughly equal parts. The U.S. rang in the new year with a postlast-
minute deal to avoid the Fiscal Cliff that kicked negotiations over “sequestration”—$
110 billion in across-the-board cuts to military and domestic spending—two
months down the road, but raised income taxes (on the wealthiest Americans) for
the first time in two decades.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

Participants in the multibillion-dollar market for distressed claims and securities had ample reason to keep a watchful eye on developments in the bankruptcy courts during each of the last three years. Controversial rulings handed down in 2005 and 2006 by the bankruptcy court overseeing the chapter 11 cases of failed energy broker Enron Corporation and its affiliates had traders scrambling for cover due to the potential that acquired claims/debt could be equitably subordinated or even disallowed, based upon the seller’s misconduct.

Section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code provides, subject to certain exceptions, that the Bankruptcy Code “does not affect any right of a creditor to offset a mutual debt owing by such creditor to the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title against a claim of such creditor against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case.” Debts are considered “mutual” when they are due to and from the same persons or entities in the same capacity.