Whoever acquires control of a listed company due to a conversion of  debts  into  shares directly attributable to a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement will not have to launch a mandatory bid. This exemption applies automatically without the need for a CNMV evaluation.

INTRODUCTION

Financing and Restructuring July 2017 Cases and transactions Dual financing to build waste management center FLUIDRA: Issuance of promissory notes on MARF Agile process to sell production unit in insolvency proceedings Legislation New rules on prospectuses Regulation coming into force on insolvency proceedings and forms Case law Indirect shareholding and subordination of credit Pledging of VAT credits resistant to insolvency proceedings Concept of group in insolvency proceedings Individual legal standing in syndicated loans Insolvency categorization of loans secured with pledge of credit ri

DECISION OF THE GENERAL DIRECTORATE ON REGISTRIES AND NOTARIAL ACTIVITIES DATED OCTOBER 6, 2015: NO PUBLIC DEED REQUIREMENT FOR REGISTERING PROPERTY JUDICIALLY AWARDED IN AN INSOLVENCY PROCEEDING

Financing and Restructuring July 2017 Cases and transactions Dual financing to build waste management center FLUIDRA: Issuance of promissory notes on MARF Agile process to sell production unit in insolvency proceedings Legislation New rules on prospectuses Regulation coming into force on insolvency proceedings and forms Case law Indirect shareholding and subordination of credit Pledging of VAT credits resistant to insolvency proceedings Concept of group in insolvency proceedings Individual legal standing in syndicated loans Insolvency categorization of loans secured with pledge of credit ri

Until 2013, no circuit court of appeals had weighed in on the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s pronouncement in the 203 North LaSalle case that property retained by a junior stakeholder under a cram-down chapter 11 plan in exchange for new value “without benefit of market valuation” violates the “absolute priority rule.” See Bank of Amer. Nat’l Trust & Savings Ass’n v. 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 526 U.S. 434 (1999), reversing Matter of 203 North LaSalle Street P’ship, 126 F.3d 955 (7th Cir. 1997).

In a significant Delaware law decision regarding creditors’ ability to sue corporate fiduciaries, the Delaware Supreme Court recently addressed the issue of whether a corporate director owes fiduciary duties to the creditors of a company that is insolvent or in the “zone of insolvency.” In North American Catholic Educ. Programming Found., Inc. v. Gheewalla, the court concluded that directors of a solvent Delaware corporation that is operating in the zone of insolvency owe their fiduciary duties to the corporation and its shareholders, and not creditors.

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.

In previous editions of the Business Restructuring Review, we reported on a pair of highly controversial rulings handed down in late 2005 and early 2006 by the New York bankruptcy court overseeing the chapter 11 cases of embattled energy broker Enron Corporation and its affiliates. In the first, Bankruptcy Judge Arthur J. Gonzalez held that a claim is subject to equitable subordination under section 510(c) of the Bankruptcy Code even if it is assigned to a third-party transferee who was not involved in any misconduct committed by the original holder of the debt.

Much attention in the commercial bankruptcy world has been devoted recently to judicial pronouncements concerning whether the practice of senior creditor class “gifting” to junior classes under a chapter 1 1 plan violates the Bankruptcy Code’s “absolute priority rule.” Comparatively little scrutiny, by contrast, has been directed toward significant developments in ongoing controversies in the courts regarding the absolute priority rule outside the realm of senior class gifting— namely, in connection with the “new value” exception to the rule and whether the rule was written out of the Bankr

The strategic importance of classifying claims and interests under a chapter 11 plan is sometimes an invitation for creative machinations designed to muster adequate support for confirmation of the plan. Although the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally states that only “substantially similar” claims or interests can be classified together, it neither defines “substantial similarity” nor requires that all claims or interests fitting the description be classified together.