Two recent Supreme Court of Canada decisions demonstrate that the corporate attribution doctrine is not a one-size-fits-all approach.
Court approval of a sale process in receivership or Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (“BIA”) proposal proceedings is generally a procedural order and objectors do not have an appeal as of right; they must seek leave and meet a high test in order obtain it. However, in Peakhill Capital Inc. v.
La reforma concursal recientemente aprobada ha sustituido los acuerdos de refinanciación y los acuerdos extrajudiciales de pago por los planes de reestructuración. Para los socios en general, y de la empresa familiar en particular, esta reforma supone un cambio de paradigma, ya que, en determinadas condiciones, los acreedores podrían imponerles un plan de reestructuración mediante el cual los acreedores tomen el control del capital de la compañía, amortizando las participaciones de los socios fundadores o preexistentes.
El Tribunal Supremo dictó el pasado 2 de julio una sentencia pionera en la que se abordan los requisitos para conseguir la liberación de deudas a través del mecanismo de la llamada segunda oportunidad. En nuestro ordenamiento se conoce a la segunda oportunidad como beneficio de exoneración del pasivo insatisfecho (BEPI) y es una herramienta que pueden utilizar las personas físicas (empresarios, autónomos o consumidores fuertemente endeudados) para liberarse de sus deudas, que les serán condonadas, permitiéndoles emprender nuevos proyectos.
With two decisions (No. 1895/2018 and No. 1896/2018), both filed on 25 January 2018, the Court of Cassation reached opposite conclusions in the two different situations
The case
The Constitutional Court (6 December 2017) confirmed that Art. 147, para. 5, of the Italian Bankruptcy Law does not violate the Constitution as long as it is interpreted in a broad sense
The case
With the decision No. 1195 of 18 January 2018, the Court of Cassation ruled on the powers of the extraordinary commissioner to require performance of pending contracts and on the treatment of the relevant claims of the suppliers
The case
The Court of Cassation with a decision of 25 September 2017, No. 22274 confirms that Art. 74 of the Italian Bankruptcy Law provides a special rule, which does not apply to cases to which it is not explicitly extended
The case
With the decision No. 1649 of 19 September 2017 the Court of Appeals of Catania followed the interpretation according to which a spin-off is not subject to the avoiding powers of a bankruptcy receiver
The case