The Bankruptcy Code confers upon debtors or trustees, as the case may be, the power to avoid certain preferential or fraudulent transfers made to creditors within prescribed guidelines and limitations. The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico recently addressed the contours of these powers through a recent decision inU.S. Glove v. Jacobs, Adv. No. 21-1009, (Bankr. D.N.M.

2020 ha sido un año atípico. La alerta sanitaria mundial provocada por la expansión del COVID-19 y la consecuente declaración del estado de alarma en España en marzo de 2020 llevaron a una vorágine legislativa sin precedentes. En este contexto, las empresas se encuentran inmersas en un escenario incierto en el que la toma de decisiones juega un papel clave para la viabilidad futura del negocio.

In In re Smith, (B.A.P. 10th Cir., Aug. 18, 2020), the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently joined the majority of circuit courts of appeals in finding that a creditor seeking a judgment of nondischargeability must demonstrate that the injury caused by the prepetition debtor was both willful and malicious under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Factual Background

In a recent decision, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that claim disallowance issues under Section 502(d) of the Bankruptcy Code "travel with" the claim, and not with the claimant. Declining to follow a published district court decision from the same federal district, the bankruptcy court found that section 502(d) applies to disallow a transferred claim regardless of whether the transferee acquired its claim through an assignment or an outright sale. See In re Firestar Diamond, 615 B.R. 161 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2020).

InIn re Juarez, 603 B.R. 610 (9th Cir. BAP 2019), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a question of first impression in the circuit with respect to property that is exempt from creditor reach: it adopted the view that, under the "new value exception" to the "absolute priority rule," an individual Chapter 11 debtor intending to retain such property need not make a "new value" contribution covering the value of the exemption.

Background

Desde el pasado 23 de marzo, con esta newsletter en Garrigues hemos hecho un esfuerzo por acercaros aquellos temas regulatorios de los que semana a semana las empresas teníais que estar más pendientes desde todas las áreas de práctica del derecho de los negocios. Dado que el estado de alarma toca a su fin en unos pocos días, esta será la última entrega de una publicación que esperamos haya cumplido su función. A partir de ahora, os seguiremos manteniendo informados a través de nuestros formatos habituales de Alertas, Comentarios, Perspectivas o Newsletters.

Preparation of financial statements and corporate income tax, recommencement of time periods, remote trials, gradual return to workplaces, insolvency proceedings and compliance with criminal law

Los plazos administrativos se reanudarán el próximo 1 de junio, mientras que los plazos procesales y sustantivos lo harán el 4 de junio, tal y como aparece contemplado en el BOE del 23 de mayo de 2020.

In In re Palladino, 942 F.3d 55 (1st Cir. 2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether a debtor receives “reasonably equivalent value” in exchange for paying his adult child’s college tuition. The Palladino court answered this question in the negative, thereby contributing to the growing circuit split regarding the avoidability of debtors’ college tuition payments for their adult children as constructively fraudulent transfers.

Background

New guarantee facility, extension of ERTE temporary layoff procedures, effects of the crisis on transfer pricing, return to judicial activity and ‘shields’ for businesses.