Home Law Implementing the Cape Town Convention and the Domestic Laws on Secured Transactions
The impact of insolvency provisions in European jurisdictions is determined by the declarations made by the European Union under the Convention and the Aircraft Protocol. The European Union deposited as a Regional Economic Integration Organization (Article XXVII Aircraft Protocol) the instrument of approval to the Aircraft Protocol on 28 April 2008 together with declarations. Accordingly, as far as provisions on remedies on insolvency are concerned, it has been interpreted that
EU Member States are unable to make declarations under Article XI Aircraft Protocol (and the corresponding Article in other Protocols), although they would be able to amend their domestic laws so as to produce same substantive outcomes as if the declaration had been made. Hence, despite the advocating of pondering OECD “qualifying declarations”, declarations concerning insolvency provisions are not expected in further instruments of ratification - see, however, declarations made by other EU Member States
In accordance to Spanish legislation on insolvency, currently in force - noting that 2014 and 2015 reforms have entailed a notable impact on (asset-based) secured creditors’ position -, after insolvency procedure is commenced with the debtor, enforcement of security interests and other title-devices agreements are stayed under the following circumstances. Those security interests on assets devoted to and necessary for the continuation of the debtor’s business or professional activities, as held by the insolvency court, cannot be enforced (or will be suspended) until the first of the following milestone occurs: the approval of an agreement not affecting the exercise of the said security interest or the course of one year after insolvency was declared without being any liquidation initiated. Likewise, within the aforementioned period enforcement of the following agreements will be stayed as well: in particular, hire purchase agreements, title reservation agreements or leasing agreements provided that they are registered in the Registry of Movables.
It might be well worth reminding that those agreements whose obligations are still pending are not affected by the commencement of the insolvency procedure. Clauses entitling parties to avoid or terminate the contract on grounds of insolvency declaration are indeed null and void. Hence, agreements in force have to be expressly declared avoided upon the insolvency procedure. Otherwise, those obligations due by the debtor will be paid against the insolvency state (masa).
In the order of preference to pay claims in insolvency procedure, asset-based secured creditors are deemed to hold “privileged” claims, in particular, claims with a “special” privilege (Article 90 Insolvency Act). Accordingly, in the liquidation phase, those claims will be first paid with the proceeds of the sale of those assets or rights.
In particular, now it should be considered the convenience to align insolvency provisions with Alternative A of Article XI of the Protocol aiming to produce an equivalent domestic result, since the option under that provision was not available for European Union Member States.
|< Prev||CONTENTS||Next >|