These regulations contain two provisions clarifying the regime applicable to SAREB (Company Managing the Assets derived from the Banking Restructuring) in its capacity as creditor in insolvency proceedings.

In 2011, the Spanish legislator introduced the court-sanctioned refinancing agreement (‘Spanish Scheme’) in the Spanish insolvency system. While the introduction of the Spanish Scheme has been praised for providing new tools for debtors to reorganise out-of-court while addressing the collective action problem, certain of its provisions have made this instrument too rigid and, thus, ineffective for tackling Spanish restructurings.

Act 14/2013, of September 27, 2013, favoring entrepreneurs and their internationalization (the “Act”), introduces a wide range of reforms on insolvency, corporate, tax and labor matters. Regarding insolvencies, it takes a more flexible approach to the quorum of financial creditors required for court-sanctioned refinancing agreements and it regulates out-of-court agree-ments for payment as mechanisms for out-of-court negotiation with creditors.

REFINANCING AGREEMENTS

I ARTICLE 233(5) OF THE CODE OF INSOLVENCY AND RECOVERY OF COMPANIES

1.                 BACKGROUND

Order No. 2014-326 of March 12 (the "Order"), adopted pursuant to enabling legislation No. 2014-1 of January 2, significantly modernizes French distressed companies law.  

The primary objective of the Order is to encourage recourse to mediation proceedings and conciliation proceedings, the efficiency and success of which have been demonstrated consistently in recent major financial restructurings. 

Section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code caps the amount of a lessor’s claim against a debtor-lessee for damages arising from the termination of a real property lease. The statutory cap is calculated according to a formula that considers, among other things, the date on which the lessor “repossessed” or the debtor-lessee “surrendered” the leased property. Because those terms are not defined in the Bankruptcy Code, however, courts disagree as to whether state or federal law should determine their meanings for the purpose of calculating the allowed amount of the lessor’s claims.

On January 10, 2012, a Florida bankruptcy court ruled in In re Pearlman, 462 B.R. 849 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2012), that substantive consolidation is purely a bankruptcy remedy and that it accordingly did not have the power to consolidate the estate of a debtor in bankruptcy with the assets and affairs of a nondebtor. In so ruling, the court staked out a position on a contentious issue that has created a widening rift among bankruptcy and appellate courts regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction over nondebtor entities.

The enduring impact of the Great Recession on businesses, individuals, municipalities, and even sovereign nations has figured prominently in world headlines during the last three years. Comparatively absent from the lede, however, has been the plight of charitable and other nonprofit entities that depend in large part on the largesse of donors who themselves have been less able or less willing to provide eleemosynary institutions with badly needed sources of capital in the current economic climate.

As part of the overhaul of bankruptcy laws in 1978, Congress for the first time included the definition of "claim" as part of the Bankruptcy Code. A few years later, in Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co. (In re M. Frenville Co.), the Third Circuit became the first court of appeals to examine the scope of this new definition in the context of the automatic stay.