Un accionista solicitó del juzgado mercantil que se acordara la disolución judicial de la compañía en la que participaba (y que se nombrara liquidador a quien ostentaba la condición de administrador) por haberse producido la paralización de los órganos sociales (art. 363.1.d Ley de Sociedades de Capital [LSC]). En el procedimiento no se discutió la realidad de esta paralización, pero se alegó —para oponerse a lo solicitado— que se había incumplido el requisito de la previa convocatoria de junta general extraordinaria.
Se presentó a inscripción en el Registro Mercantil escritura pública de fusión en la que la sociedad absorbente estaba íntegramente participada por la sociedad absorbida (que se encontraba en liquidación). Los acuerdos de fusión fueron adoptados por el socio único de la sociedad absorbente (esto es, por la sociedad absorbida, representada por el liquidador). La registradora denegó la inscripción argumentando, entre otras cosas, que resultaba preciso también el acuerdo de la junta general de la sociedad absorbida.
For more than a century, courts in England and Wales have refused to recognize or enforce foreign court judgments or proceedings that discharge or compromise debts governed by English law. In accordance with a rule (the "Gibbs Rule") stated in an 1890 decision by the English Court of Appeal, creditors holding debt governed by English law may still sue to recover the full amount of their debts in England even if such debts have been discharged or modified in connection with a non-U.K.
En su Sentencia de 1 de marzo de 2019 [RJ 2019/622] el Tribunal Supremo ha venido a interpretar la excepción a la subordinación de los créditos de las personas especialmente relacionadas con el concursado que se contiene en el artículo 92.5º de la Ley Concursal (LC).
U.S. courts have a long-standing tradition of recognizing or enforcing the laws and court rulings of other nations as an exercise of international "comity." Prior to the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code in 2005, the procedure for obtaining comity from a U.S. court in cases involving a foreign bankruptcy or insolvency case was haphazard and unpredictable. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois indicates that the enactment of chapter 15 was a game changer in this context. In Halo Creative & Design Ltd. v.
Las Sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 10 de julio y 31 de octubre de 2018 [RJ 2018/2814 y RJ 2018/4729] han debido decidir si una sociedad (TIP) ostentaba el control sobre otra (TRECAM) a los efectos de determinar si esta segunda pertenecía al grupo de la socia única (CAM) de la primera (lo que resultaba relevante para la calificación en el concurso de TRECAM de los créditos de CAM y de otra filial íntegramente participada de esta ultima entidad).
In In re Avanti Commc'ns Grp. PLC, 582 B.R. 603 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2018), Judge Martin Glenn of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order under chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code enforcing a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by a court in England that included nonconsensual third-party releases. Judge Glenn determined that such releases should be recognized and enforced consistent with principles of "comity" and cooperation with foreign courts inherent under chapter 15.
Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.
Even if a U.S. court has jurisdiction over a lawsuit involving foreign litigants, the court may conclude that a foreign court is better suited to adjudicate the dispute because either: (i) it would be more convenient, fair, or efficient for the foreign court to do so (a doctrine referred to as "forum non conveniens"); or (ii) the U.S. court concludes that it should defer to the foreign court as a matter of international comity. Both of these doctrines were addressed in a ruling recently handed down by the U.S.
With the significant increase in cross-border bankruptcy and insolvency filings in the 43 nations or territories that have adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (the "Model Law"), including the U.S., the incidence of "COMI migration"—the shifting of a debtor’s "center of main interests" ("COMI") to a country with more favorable insolvency laws—has also increased. As demonstrated by a ruling handed down by the U.S.