No es concursal una acción que tiene por objeto una pretensión de indemnización de daños y perjuicios por responsabilidad delictual o cuasidelictual, que ejercita el síndico en el marco de un procedimiento de insolvencia y que, de prosperar, daría lugar a la reintegración de lo obtenido en la masa activa. La competencia para conocer de ella se determina por las disposiciones del Reglamento Bruselas I (RBI, aplicado al caso por razones temporales, si bien lo decidido por el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea [TJUE] se extiende al actualmente aplicable RBIbis).

In a recent decision, In re Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc., No. 18-10518 (KG) (Bankr. D. Del. Nov. 13, 2018), Judge Kevin Gross of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware held that the mutuality requirement of section 553 of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed, declining to find mutuality in a triangular setoff between the debtor, a parent entity that owed the debtor money, and that entity’s subsidiary, which was a creditor.

During this mostly quiet week in restructuring, most of us are either away on vacation (think beach or ski) or home for the holidays, maybe back in our hometowns. For me, it’s always the latter, and home for the holidays is Virginia Beach, Virginia, where I sit while I write this blog post (alas, not the beach vacation some of you may be enjoying; my relatives live about 20 minutes from the beach and the high temperature this time of year is usually in the 40s).

Es exclusiva la competencia de los tribunales del Estado miembro en cuyo territorio se ha abierto un procedimiento de insolvencia para conocer de una acción revocatoria por insolvencia ejercitada contra un demandado cuyo domicilio se encuentra en otro Estado miembro.

In Judge Glenn’s recent lengthy decision recognizing and enforcing a restructuring plan in the chapter 15 proceedings of In re Agrokor1, a Croatian company in Croatian insolvency proceedings, he highlighted that the concept of comity – respect for rulings in other countries – remains an important U.S.

If you were to walk down Fifth Avenue and see a store displaying a white apple suspended in a large glass case, more likely than not you would immediately think of the California-based tech giant who shares its name with the nutritious snack. Similarly, if the person walking in front of you on your way to the Apple store lifted her heel to reveal a candy-apple red shoe sole, more likely than not the name Christian Louboutin would pop into your head.

In a recent decision, the Fifth Circuit narrowly held that federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its voting right in the company’s charter to prevent the filing by the company of a bankruptcy petition merely because it is also an unsecured creditor. In re Franchise Servs. of N. Am., Inc., 891 F.3d 198, 203 (5th Cir. 2018).

It’s been an interesting couple of weeks for bankruptcy at the United States Supreme Court with two bankruptcy-related decisions released in back-to-back weeks. Last week, the Supreme Court issued an important decision delineating the scope of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code (discussed here [1] for those who missed it).

Las normas del Derecho rector de la filial en materia de grupos resultan, en principio, aplicables a la matriz aunque esta sea extranjera. No cabe descartar que, además, el Derecho rector de la matriz se aplique para imponer una responsabilidad por las instrucciones que perjudicaron a la filial, aunque el Derecho de ésta no contemple normas especiales al respecto.

Despite the initial glee of the prospect of a United States that was independent of Middle East oil, beginning in the fourth quarter of 2014, the price of oil started dropping precipitously.  As noted in a recent article, over 80 bankruptcies in the oil industry were filed in 2015, up 471 % over calendar year 2014.