A new milestone has been reached in the reform process of the Spanish Insolvency Act. On 25 May, the draft bill of the Law 9/2015, of urgent measures in insolvency proceedings, has finally been enacted as law. The new rule “validates” many of the modifications introduced by the latest Royal-Decree Laws, with some changes.
 

When will the insolvency-related provisions come into force?

Following Parliamentary approval in March 2015, there has been a level of uncertainty around the implementation timeline for certain company law and insolvency provisions. In particular, many of the changes to the Insolvency Act 1986 will come into force without transitional provisions and so will apply automatically to existing insolvency proceedings.

In a “loan-to-own” investment, an investor acquires secured debt at a discount to leverage the face amount of the debt in an asset purchase or debt-to-equity swap. For example, if an investor can buy US$50 million worth of debt for US$25 million, it can, in a bankruptcy proceeding, bid on the underlying assets that secure the debt at a 50 percent discount, because the investor can credit bid the face value of the debt as the equivalent of cash in a sale of collateral in bankruptcy, thus creating a competitive advantage over cash or strategic bidders.

Until recently, there was little call for restructuring and turnaround specialists in the UK to focus on the oil and gas industry. That has now undoubtedly changed.  In the second half of 2014, Brent crude prices fell from over US$100 a barrel to around US$50, and although prices have since stabilised (currently near the US$60 mark), a low price environment in the medium term seems likely. That is not bad news for all in the oil and gas industry.

1. The reform and its drivers

We are witnessing an unprecedented review of Spanish Law 22/2003 on Insolvency Proceedings (Spanish Insolvency Act or “IA”).  With the recent approval of three Royal Decree-Laws (“RDLs”), namely RDL 4/2014, of 7 March, RDL 11/2014, of 5 September and RDL 1/2015, of 27 February), the Spanish legislator seeks to achieve three main goals:

Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch)

A recent decision of HHJ Cooke in the Chancery Division of the High Court in Kandola v Mirza Solicitors LLP [2015] EWHC 460 (Ch) has provided some useful guidance on solicitors' duties to advise as to the risk of insolvency of the vendor when acting for purchasers in property transactions where deposits are held as agents for the vendor. It also provides guidance on solicitors' duties generally when advising on risks in transactions.

The Facts

The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan No. 176-V “On Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy” dated 7 March 2014 (hereinafter the “Rehabilitation Law”) was amended as follows:

The UK is to ratify the Cape Town Convention and its Aircraft Protocol (together, Cape Town). This may help UK aircraft operators access cheaper capital markets funding. But that cheaper funding may require the UK, in effect, to adopt Cape Town's "Alternative A" insolvency regime. Section 1110, US Bankruptcy Code (on which Alternative A is based) has worked well in US airline restructurings. But Alternative A may not mesh well with English insolvency law. Will Alternative A hamper restructurings of UK operators of helicopters and other aircraft?

In late December 2014, Russia adopted major changes to its insolvency (bankruptcy) law. Critically, the changes introduced the long-awaited regulation of individual insolvency (personal bankruptcy), with the aim of closing the regulatory gap and supporting individual debtors struggling during Russia's economic downturn.1 Some time has passed since the initial draft law on individual insolvency (personal bankruptcy) was first delivered to the Russian Parliament back in 2012.

Nigel Barnett talks about bribes and other proprietary rights in insolvencies.

Introduction

For over 150 years, it has been a principle of English law that if an agent takes a bribe or a secret commission, he is liable to account to his principal for the amount received. However, there has been conflicting authority and academic debate as to whether the principal merely has a personal claim against the agent or whether he can assert a proprietary claim to the monies received and any profits made therefrom.