Introducción

Este mes destacamos especialmente dos sentencias del Tribunal Supremo que aclaran dudas con respecto de dos situaciones que se dan en la práctica:

(i) el tratamiento del importe a recibir en una opción de venta firmada antes del concurso y ejecutada tras éste;

(ii) la calificación de un crédito subordinado garantizado con hipoteca.

Introducción

Este mes las resoluciones más interesantes están en los juzgados de lo mercantil.

El auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 1 de Málaga de 4 de noviembre de 2024 confirma la posibilidad de una segunda prorroga de los efectos de la comunicación de apertura de negociaciones con los acreedores, como ya hizo auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 2 de Madrid de 1 de octubre de 2024.

Restructuring Plans (RPs)

2024 was a year of firsts for RPs, and as case law in this area continues to evolve, there is little doubt that this will carry through into 2025.

It would be remiss not to expect to see more RPs in 2025. News of Thames Water's restructuring is "splashed" all over the press and Speciality Steel's plan might see the first "cram up" of creditors, but there seems a long way to go to get creditors onside.

Categorisation of a charge as fixed or floating will have a significant impact on how assets are dealt with on insolvency and creditor outcomes.

Typical fixed charge assets include land, property, shares, plant and machinery, intellectual property such as copyrights, patents and trademarks and goodwill.

Typical floating charge assets include stock and inventory, trade debtors, cash and currency, movable plant and machinery (such as vehicles), and raw materials and other consumable items used by the business.

Introducción

Dentro de las resoluciones concursales publicadas este verano vuelven a cobrar especial protagonismo las relativas a los planes de restructuración. La ley 16/2022, de 5 de septiembre, que introdujo los planes en nuestro ordenamiento cumple ahora dos años de vigencia y poco a poco se va formando un nutrido cuerpo de doctrina jurisprudencial.

Dicha doctrina comienza a perfilar límites en la flexibilidad total que se predica de los planes. En concreto en esta edición de las píldoras concursales reseñamos dos nuevas resoluciones clave, que son:

As practitioners we pour over notices of intention to appoint (NOIA) and notices of appointment of administrators (NOA) to make sure every detail is accurate. Why? Because no one wants to risk an invalid appointment because there was a minor mistake or error that was overlooked. Understandably errors occur, particularly when the appointment of administrators often happens at speed, with all parties inevitably juggling many balls. Prescribed information may have been missed, or incorrectly stated and procedural steps may have been inadvertently forgotten.

For those that are that way inclined (which includes us at #SPBRestructuring!), the 500 plus page Wright v Chappell judgment which sets out the BHS wrongful trading claim against its former directors makes for an interesting read. It paints a colourful picture of the downfall of the BHS group, from the point that it was sold for £1 to its eventual demise into administration and then liquidation. You can make your own mind up about the characters involved, but the story is a sorry one, with creditors ultimately suffering the most.

1. Introducción

Este mes son prominentes los autos de homologación de planes de restructuración (en su mayoría no consensuales) que seguimos viendo. En ese mismo campo destacamos la desestimación de la impugnación del ya famoso plan de Torrejón Salud (plan con una única clase) que se ha instaurado como un "leading case" en la práctica. Los recurrentes son condenados en costas.

Todo esto y más resúmenes de resoluciones que nos han parecido interesantes a continuación.

2. Audiencias Provinciales

No, it isn’t. We now have two cases where the Court has confirmed that insolvency practitioners do not need the consent of paid secured creditors when extending an administration under para. 78 of Schedule B1 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (the “Act”).

This question was considered in the recent case of Pindar where the judge concluded that an administration had been validly extended where the consent of one of the secured creditors (who had been paid) was not obtained.