Mexican Legal Framework of Business Insolvency - White & Case

extend to guarantors or co-obligors. 51 That is, the guarantors and co-obligors would
be bound by the original pre-petition terms.
In contrast, for Rodríguez, the reorganization plan would affect the claim as a
whole, so the guarantor or co-obligor would enjoy the benefits afforded by the
reorganization plan. 52
Unfortunately, neither Brunetti’s or Rodríguez’s comments refer to the Insolvency
Law, nor are there any court precedents to assist in answering this question.
ii. Proposal
Only the conciliator has the authority to propose a reorganization plan [LCM 148].
So, while the conciliator may in fact solicit (or even get unsolicited) proposals from the
debtor and/or creditors, it is ultimately the conciliator who will propose the plan. This
is why the Insolvency Law does not address issues of exclusivity periods, multiple
plan proposals and eventualities of the like, and does not impose any restrictions
on the number of proposals or the number, timing or extent of changes that the
conciliator is entitled to make to a proposed plan.
iii. Content
While the Insolvency Law includes precise rules as to the content of the restructuring
plan, it provides liberty to the parties to determine the economic substance [LCM
153]. The Insolvency Law even allows restructured loans to be maintained in their
original currency or unit of account instead of UDIs [LCM 159].
A reorganization plan must provide for (1) the payment regime for claims against the
estate, singularly privileged claims and tax claims; (2) the payment regime for claims
of secured creditors and priority creditors who do not sign the plan, with respect
51 Brunetti (1945), pp. 302, 319.
52
Rodríguez (1997), comment to LQSP 356.
White & Case
71