El rango de los créditos a favor de la Administración por restitución de subvenciones depende del momento de su concesión

Sentencia de la Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo de 20 de noviembre de 2018

En un auto de 18 de diciembre de 2018, el Juzgado Mercantil número 1 de Madrid ha permitido que un deudor declarado en concurso pueda suscribir y homologar un acuerdo de refinanciación con posterioridad a la declaración de concurso.

El Tribunal Constitucional ha declarado inconstitucional una disposición de una ley del Parlamento de Cataluña que permitía que, en caso de venta a un tercero (habitualmente un fondo) de un crédito garantizado con vivienda, el deudor pudiera liberarse de su deuda pagando al comprador de la deuda exclusivamente el precio que éste había pagado (más los intereses legales y gastos causados por la reclamación).

The Constitutional Court has held unconstitutional a provision in a law passed by the Catalan parliament which, if a loan secured with a home is sold to a third party (a fund usually), allowed the debtor to be released from their debt by paying the buyer out of the debt only the price the buyer had paid (plus the statutory interest and costs caused by the claim).

In a recent case, Emmett AJA of the Supreme Court of New South Wales refused to make an order to terminate the winding up of an incorporated association. In this article, we re-examine the principles with which the Court will have regard when determining whether to exercise its discretion to terminate the winding up of a company or incorporated association.

Background

Receiverships usually arise from a secured creditor exercising their rights under a loan contract or mortgage following a default. But even where no default occurs, the Supreme Court of New South Wales has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver to preserve the property of an association pending the resolution of a dispute about the management of the association’s property.

Jurisdiction

Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.

Nulidad de un despido colectivo realizado en la sucursal española de una sociedad sometida a un procedimiento de insolvencia alemán

Sentencia de la Sala de lo Social de la Audiencia Nacional de 30 de abril de 2018

Collective layoff voided at Spanish branch of a company subject to German insolvency proceedings

Judgment by the National Appellate Court (Labor Chamber) on April 30, 2018

An insolvency order by a German court on a company does not in itself authorize that company to carry out a collective layoff at its Spanish branch. The German company should have petitioned for a local insolvency proceeding on its Spanish branch to obtain authorization from the judge hearing the Spanish insolvency proceeding to conduct the collective layoff at its branch.

A company’s non-compliance with a statutory demand is the most common method of proving its insolvency in any winding up proceedings. Generally, if it does not make good the debt under the statutory demand within 21 days of service, the company will be presumed to be insolvent. What can a company do if it disputes the legitimacy of the debt?

The basics – compulsory winding up and statutory demands

Prior to March 2017, any right to sue that comprised an asset of a bankrupt’s estate could only be litigated by the trustee of the bankrupt. The inability of a trustee to assign a bankrupt’s cause of action resulted in many such actions not being litigated due to factors such as a lack of resources. This position changed through the insertion into the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) in Schedule 2 of the Insolvency Practice Schedule (Bankruptcy), which expressly permits a trustee to assign to a third party any right to sue that is held by of a bankrupt estate (see section 100-5).