On Saturday, June 28, Puerto Rico’s Governor Padilla signed into effect Puerto Rico’s new bankruptcy law for certain revenue bond issuers.  Within 24 hours of the statute’s enactment, two mutual fund complexes owning approximately $1.7 billion in bonds of the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) filed a complaint in the federal district court for Puerto Rico, seeking a declaratory judgment invalidating the fledgling legislation.

On Saturday, June 28, Puerto Rico Governor Alejandro Garcia Padilla signed into law the euphemistically-named “Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act” (the “Act”).

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) yesterday filed separate motions to dismiss the federal court complaint filed last month by some PREPA bondholders seeking to invalidate the recently-enacted Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act.&n

On August 11, Franklin Funds and Oppenheimer Rochester Funds filed a second amended complaint, opposition to motion to dismiss and cross-motion for summary judgment in the litigation they previously filed in the United States District Court for Puerto Rico challenging the constitutionality and validity of Puerto Rico’s so-called Recovery Act.  The second amended complaint reiterates that a PREPA filing under the Recovery Act, which establishes debt adjustment procedures for most of Puerto Rico’s public corporations, is both “probable and imminent.”  The summary judgment motion see

On February 6, 2015, Judge Francisco Besosa of the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico held that the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act (the “Recovery Act”) is expressly preempted by section 903 of the Bankruptcy Code and is therefore unconstitutional.

A few reactions to today’s oral arguments before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit regarding the validity of Puerto Rico’s Recovery Act:

In re Caribbean Medical Testing Center, Inc. (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico) Case no. 11-06124

In re Hotel Airport Inc. (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico) Case no. 11-06620

The Romanian High Court of Cassation and Justice has ruled on April 4th, 2019 the decision no. 12 (Decision in the interest of the law) that put an end to the controversy over the legal regime of the expenses representing local taxes owed by the debtor for the immovable assets sold within the insolvency procedure.

This controversy has revolved around the question whether these taxes might be qualified either as budgetary receivables or expenses for the preservation of assets.

Many questions arise when a contractual partner enters into insolvency. One question is what happens with the debtor's ongoing contracts when the insolvency starts? Are they maintained or terminated?

One of the main principles governing insolvency proceedings states that the debtor's reorganisation should be sought before bankruptcy. To this end, the Romanian Insolvency Law (RIL) provides a series articles supporting the debtor's potential reorganisation.