The object of this article is to analyze a controversial issue which is considered in recent times by the Mercantile Courts as a current incident involved in the Bankruptcy Proceedings and more specifically, to analyze the Judgement issued by the Court of First Instance no. 9 and Mercantile Court of Cordoba dated April, 19th 2010, in which the aforementioned incident is involved.  

This incident is essentially based on establishing the treatment that should be granted to the additional guarantees provided by third parties in bankruptcy proceedings.  

The current economic recession has been particularly acute in one of the pillars of the national economy, the construction and real-estate sector. This sector, which had already been undergoing a slowdown in recent years following the so-called “real-estate boom”, now stands in a profound and particular crisis with sales coming to a standstill, caused not only by the overall market situation, but mainly due to the restrictions placed by banks on loans, which are putting an economic brake on entrepreneurs.  

The Sixth Circuit is one of only five federal appellate courts to institute a bankruptcy appellate panel under 28 U.S.C. § 158(b).  (The others are the First, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth circuits.) As the bankruptcy appellate panel is unfamiliar to many non-bankruptcy attorneys, this post will review the Sixth Circuit’s bankruptcy appellate panel. 

The FDIC has recently appealed a loss it suffered at trial on the question of whether the debtor in bankruptcy (the holding company of a failed bank) made a “commitment” to maintain the capital of its subsidiary bank under Section 365(o) of the Bankruptcy Code.  After a week-long bench trial with an advisory jury, the Northern District of Ohio rejected the FDIC’s claim that a commitment had been made by the holding company to the Office of Thrift Supervision.  The F

The US Supreme Court has ruled in Stern v. Marshall (June 23, 2011) that a bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to render final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s compulsory counterclaim against a creditor arising under common law, despite a statutory grant of jurisdiction.

On 23 February 2011, the Federal Government (Bundeskabinett) adopted the government draft (Regierungsentwurf) of an act (Entwurf eines Gesetzes zur weiteren Erleichterung der Sanierung von Unternehmen) that proposes material changes to the German Insolvency Act (Insolvenzordnung). The government's aim is to modify the economic terms for the restructuring of distressed companies .

In what appears to be a matter of first impression, Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, has held that a statutory safe harbor against constructive fraudulent conveyance actions under the Bankruptcy Code involving securities transfers does not apply to the private sale of securities, even when there are no allegations of illegal conduct or fraud involved in the underlying transaction.

In a decision released on March 29, 2011, CDX Liquidating Trust v. Venrock Assocs., et al., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 6390 (7th Cir. March 29, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, reversing the district court’s ruling, held that a director’s disclosure of a conflict, in and of itself, is insufficient to protect that director from liability for breach of fiduciary duty or disloyalty arising from that conflict.

Recently the German Federal Government introduced a reform of the German Insolvency Code by adopting a draft bill of an Act to Further Facilitate the Restructuring of Businesses (the “Bill”). The Bill primarily focuses on the facilitation of insolvency plans as a tool for restructurings and to eliminate certain obstacles of the German insolvency law. If enacted as proposed, the Bill would simplify the purchase of shares of an insolvent company and would give investors more influence and flexibility in in-solvency plan proceedings.

INSOLVENCY PLANS

In September 2010, the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a reclaiming seller rights despite the claimant’s service of a timely written reclamation demand and compliance with a reclamation procedures order and section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that: