The Spanish Supreme Court has established the legalconcept of insolvency as an objective requirement forthe Declaration of Insolvency pursuant to Section 2.1 ofthe bankruptcy Act by virtue of the decision taken by the Court on April 1, 2014.

The new amendments carried out in the BankruptcyProceedings Act by virtue of the Royal Decree 4/2014,dated March 7, aims to introduce a viable restructuringof corporate debt, trying to streamline BankruptcyProceedings and prevailing primacy of will.

The Texas Supreme Court, on June 20, 2014, issued its highly  anticipated opinion in Ritchie v. Rupe, 2014 Tex. LEXIS 500 (Tex.  2014). Ritchie involved a claim by a minority shareholder in a  closely held corporation under the Texas receivership statute,  seeking to force the majority shareholders to buy-out the minority  shareholder’s interest in the corporation.

On July 23, in ASARCO LLC v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al. No. 13-1435 (10th Cir.), the Tenth Circuit rejected the notion that settlement requirements are different in the bankruptcy context.  Section 113 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C.

The recently-approved Royal Decree Law 4/2014 (RDL), dated March 7 and published March 8 in the Official State Gazette (BOE), has the main goal of addressing measures to ensure the feasible restructuring of corporate debt, encouraging a relief of financial burdens for companies which, despite high debt levels, are still feasible from an operational viewpoint.

In Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) and others [2014] EWHC 704 (Ch), the High Court ruled on issues regarding the order of distributions and payments in the administration and potential liquidation of various Lehman entities. This wide-ranging judgment gives clarity on a number of previously uncertain issues.

Summary

Following the US case of Morning Mist Holdings when a Court of Appeals decided that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the Chapter 15 case petition, we look again at the case of Kemsley where the US bankruptcy court held that COMI had to be analysed on the date of the filing of the UK bankruptcy. We consider whether this could have affected the outcome of the Kemsley case and look at the factors used by the English and US Courts to interpret an individual debtor’s COMI.

Background

The Implications of the Willmott Growers Decision

On 4 December 2013 the High Court handed down its decision in Willmott Growers Group Inc v Willmott Forests Limited (Receivers and Managers Appointed (In Liquidation)) [2013] HCA 51 (Willmott Growers case), clarifying the scope of a liquidator’s statutory power of disclaimer.

This week the Court of Appeal has heard the long awaited appeal in Jervis and another v Pillar Denton Limited (Game Station) and others, better known as the Game Station case, which (depending on the outcome) may trigger a drastic change to the way in which rent in administration is treated.

This week will hopefully see the end of a long running battle between Britain’s biggest landlords and the restructuring profession. On 12 February, the Court of Appeal will start to hear an appeal relating to the administration of Game Station (Jervis v Pillar Denton). It will consider whether the administrators should pay rent for the properties which they occupied during the administration as an administration expense, so ensuring the landlords receive their rent in priority to payments  made to other creditors.

Background