In bankruptcy cases under chapter 11, debtors sometimes opt for a "structured dismissal" when a consensual plan of reorganization or liquidation cannot be reached or conversion to chapter 7 would be too costly. In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 137 S. Ct. 973, 2017 BL 89680 (U.S. Mar. 27, 2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not allow bankruptcy courts to approve distributions in structured dismissals which violate the Bankruptcy Code's ordinary priority rules.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. The Court's decision could resolve a circuit split as to whether section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code can shield from fraudulent conveyance attack transfers made through financial institutions where such financial institutions are merely "conduits" in the relevant transaction.

On May 1, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting, No. 16-784, on appeal from the U.S. Court of Appeals from the Seventh Circuit. See FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Merit Management Group, LP, 830 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2016) (a discussion of the Seventh Circuit's ruling is available here).

Siguen sin resolverse satisfactoriamente las cuestiones laborales y de la Seguridad Social en relación con la transmisión de unidad productiva en concurso.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 22, 2017, in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., that without the consent of affected creditors, bankruptcy courts may not approve "structured dismissals" providing for distributions that "deviate from the basic priority rules that apply under the primary mechanisms the [Bankruptcy] Code establishes for final distributions of estate value in business bankruptcies."

En situaciones de crisis empresarial no son extrañas demandas de despido «tácito». Aunque se trata de una denominación no recogida por el legislador laboral, reproduce la posibilidad que el artículo 50 del Estatuto de los Trabajadores otorga al trabajador para extinguir su contrato en determinadas circunstancias y con derecho a la indemnización correspondiente al despido improcedente. Este tipo de demandas suelen coincidir con los procesos concursales, si bien la realidad temporal puede ser distinta.

La Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social viene oponiéndose a que se le aplique el artículo 176 bis.2 de la Ley Concursal en aquellos créditos cuyo vencimiento resultara anterior a la entrada en vigor de la reforma de la citada norma. Se entiende que ha de considerarse el pago de la deuda contra la masa a su respectivo vencimiento, en aplicación de la norma que estaba en vigor cuando se generó la deuda o, al menos, cuando se reclamó por parte de la Tesorería General de la Seguridad Social dicha deuda a la administración concursal.

1. Employment in a Member State of workers resident therein by companies declared insolvent that, notwithstanding formal registration in a third country, have their real seat in said Member State

In Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision that transfers of trademark patents were avoidable under section 548(a)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code and Minnesota state law because they were made with the intent to defraud creditors.

1.       Plan de liquidación concursal con exoneración del pasivo laboral y de la Seguridad Social sin oposición de afectados