In a recent Hunton & Williams client alert, we discussed some of the issues relating to the termination of credit default swap agreements that were pending before the Lehman bankruptcy court, including the enforceability of so-called “flip clauses.” (“Swap Termination and the Subordination of Termination Payments in the Lehman Bankruptcy,” December 2009.) Recently, the court ruled for Lehman on many of these issues. The court’s ruling (Lehman Brothers Special Financing Inc.

On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”¹ where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.

In a recently published opinion, Judge John K. Olson of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida permitted the bankruptcy estates of TOUSA, Inc. and its debtor subsidiaries to avoid and recover more than $1 billion of liens and cash that the debtors had transferred to secured lenders in a transaction entered into six months prior to the debtors’ chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of TOUSA, Inc. v. Citicorp North America, Inc., 2009 Bankr. LEXIS 3311 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct. 13, 2009).

Re Powerhouse Limited: Prudential Assurance Company Limited v PRG Powerhouse Limited [2007] EWHC 1002 Ch Guarantees are widely used in commercial transactions to provide assurance to creditors that debts or other obligations owed to them are discharged fully in the event the principal debtor fails to perform. This assurance was shaken by the steps taken in early 2006 by PRG Powerhouse Limited (Powerhouse) to enter into a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) that contained proposals to release certain parent company guarantees given to landlords of premises being vacated by Powerhouse.

In the recent decision of Topland Portfolio No.1 Limited v Smiths News Trading Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 18, the Court of Appeal has given a timely reminder of the need for landlords to tread carefully when dealing with leases to ensure that a tenant guarantee remains effective.

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.  

In a 113-page decision (click here to read decision) that is sure to be applauded by lenders and bond traders alike, Judge Alan S. Gold of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, in overturning a Bankruptcy Court opinion that has caused lenders much concern, has issued a stern ruling that provides a bulwark against efforts by creditors and trustees in bankruptcy to expand the scope of the fraudulent conveyance provisions under the Bankruptcy Code.

Can a waiver of rights ever be beneficial to the person granting the waiver?  Yes.  In In re Adamson Apparel, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, in a 2-1 

The extension of the term for the delivery of works not authorized by the guarantor that had secured  the penalty for delay does not  harm it and, therefore, the guarantee is not  extinguished;  any increase in the  penalty agreed does not extinguish the guarantee,  but  cannot be enforceable on the guarantor that will be liable in the terms agreed in the initial  agreement. This decision discussed the effects  on the guarantee of  the novation of the  secured  obligation agreed without the guarantor’s knowledge.

The Madrid and Barcelona Provincial Courts took different positions on the classification of a creditor’s credit in the insolvency of the joint and several guarantor: the former classed it as an insolvency credit; the latter classed it as a contingent claim.