Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.
La provisión con cargo a la masa como medida cautelar a favor de un acreedor contingente debe ser material
Auto de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona de 3 de abril de 2018
Commonly, a creditor being sued by a liquidator to refund an alleged unfair preference is owed money by the company in liquidation.
Liquidators argue that under section 553(c)(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Act) a creditor is not able to set-off the outstanding indebtedness owed by the company to the creditor to reduce any liability of the creditor to refund any unfair preference. Similar arguments are made by liquidators in relation to insolvent trading claims.
A snapshot of the court decisions
A provision out of assets available to creditors as injunctive relief for holder of contingent claim must actually be material
Decision by Barcelona Provincial Appellate Court on April 3, 2018
On March 14, 2018 the European Commission presented the Second Progress Report on the reduction of non-performing loans (“NPLs”). The report comprises a memo and a factsheet, whose versions in English can be obtained on the website of the European Commission, which also distributed a press release (English version).
El pasado 28 de febrero la Comisión Europea publicó el Borrador de Acuerdo sobre la retirada del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (“UE”).
On February 28 last the European Commission published the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”).
Just because a liquidator asserts you have received an unfair preference, does not necessarily mean you have or that there are no potential defences available to you.
It is common for commercial contracts to contain ipso facto clauses, which allow a party to terminate or modify the terms of the contract where the other party experiences an insolvency event. A concern addressed by the Government is that these clauses can prevent a financially distressed company from turning their situation around.
The High Court’s recent decision in Ramsay Health Care Australia Pty Ltd v Compton [2017] HCA 28 has confirmed a bankruptcy court can exercise a discretion to go behind the judgment debt where sufficient reason is shown for questioning whether there is a debt due to the petitioning creditor.
In the recent decision of Lane (Trustee), in the matter of Lee (Bankrupt) v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation [2017] FCA 953, Cooper Grace Ward acted for the trustee in bankruptcy, who sought directions from the Court regarding the administration of a trading trust where the bankrupt was the trustee.
Facts