Executive Order n° 2014-326 of 12 March 2014 reforming French insolvency proceedings was published in the Official Journal of the French Republic (Journal officiel de la République Française) on 14 March 2014.

Considered a priority by the Government, the objectives of this reform include, notably, favoring preventative measures and increasing the powers of creditors.¹ Below are the principal provisions which will enter into force on 1 July 2014:

Amicable proceedings: mandat ad hoc, conciliation proceeding

On the bill of the Federal German Government for an Act Serving the Further Facilitation of the Reorganization of Enterprises (ESUG)

On September 15, 2009, the United States Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York ordered Metavante Corporation (“Metavante”) to make payments to Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc. (“LBSF”) under a prepetition interest rate swap agreement guaranteed by Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. (“LBHI” and, together with LBSF, “Lehman”) after Metavante had suspended ordinary course settlement payments under the swap.1 Metavante claimed a contractual right to withhold payment under Section 2(a)(iii) of the 1992 ISDA Master Agreement as a result of Lehman’s bankruptcy.

On July 22, 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed denial of the motion of Parmalat S.p.A. ("New Parmalat") to extend an injunction provided to its predecessor, Parmalat Finanziaria, S.p.A., under Bankruptcy Code section 304, against securities fraud actions.1 Although the appeal addressed the issue of injunction in the context of superseded Bankruptcy Code section 304, this decision and the underlying lower court opinion signify other issues of broader import, including the need for careful plan drafting and the complexities inherent in cross-border cases.

Creditors often compromise disputed claims against debtors and their guarantors. In connection with the settlement of claims against a debtor and its guarantor, the creditor may give the debtor and the guarantor written releases from further liability in exchange for a settlement payment. But what if the creditor later surrenders a portion of the payment in settlement of a preference recovery action? Can the creditor revive the guarantee notwithstanding the release?

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.

In order to encourage the promotion and specialized attention of corporate restructurings and insolvency proceedings, by agreement of the Plenary of the Federal Judiciary Council of Mexico, two district courts specialized in commercial bankruptcy matters (concursos mercantiles) have been created, located in Mexico City.

Courts in Commercial Bankruptcy Matters

A report about the administrative practice of the German Takeover Panel in the last decade

The exemption from the requirement to launch a mandatory offer based on the restructuring of a target company is the most frequently applied exemption from the mandatory offer procedure in German takeover law. In view of the expected increase of restructuring cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it is likely to become even more important.

The Spanish Government has just approved relevant changes to the Spanish Insolvency Act in view of the current situation in Spain pursuant to the COVID-19 outbreak.

The new Royal Decree 16/2020, of 28 April

Before Royal Decree 16/2020, of 28 April ("RD 16/2020"), was approved, certain temporary changes had already been introduced as a matter of urgency to Spanish Act 22/2003, of 9 July (the "Spanish Insolvency Act"), by Royal Decree 8/2020, of 17 March ("RD 8/2020").

On May 20, 2019, the Supreme Court held in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a debtor-licensor's rejection of a trademark license agreement does not "deprive the licensee of its rights to use the trademark." This holding resolves a longstanding circuit split in the Federal Courts of Appeal about the effects of bankruptcy on trademark licenses.

Background