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.

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

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

La justicia europea se pronuncia sobre la aplicación de las garantías laborales en la transmisión de empresas cuando cedente y cesionario prevén la posterior desaparición del cesionario por liquidación. Nada impide segregar una parte de la empresa y posibilitar su autonomía, pero mantener la dependencia y provocar su quiebra resulta contrario al principio de estabilidad que rige el transfondo laboral de toda transmisión empresarial.

Ante el embargo de todos los saldos de las cuentas bancarias de la empresa por parte del Juzgado de lo Social, el administrador concursal solicita que sea el Juez de lo Mercantil el que se pronuncie sobre si los bienes a embargar son necesarios para la continuidad de la empresa. De ser así, el Juzgado de lo Social deberá esperar a la resolución mercantil antes de adoptar ninguna medida de embargo y habrá de devolver al administrador concursal las cantidades confiscadas.

El reconocimiento de la improcedencia del despido del trabajador en la fase de conciliación prejudicial implica asimismo el abono de la indemnización correspondiente al trabajador. Cuando, tras el acuerdo alcanzado, se intenta su ejecución pero la empresa declara su insolvencia, los trabajadores suelen recurrir al FOGASA para el cobro de las cantidades adeudadas.

In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York recently analyzed whether a debtor may exempt from her bankruptcy estate a retirement account that was bequeathed to her upon the death of her parent. In In re Todd, 585 B.R. 297 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y 2018), the court addressed an objection to a debtor’s claim of exemption in an inherited retirement account, and held that the property was not exempt under New York and federal law.

La competencia del orden social para declarar una sucesión de empresas en caso de adquisición de unidad productiva en concurso no parece albergar duda alguna para la Sala de lo Social del Tribunal Supremo. A tal fin, se imponen la aplicación de la norma laboral, las consecuencias derivadas sobre la responsabilidad solidaria de empresa adquirente y transmitente en toda su extensión —para contratos vigentes y deudas derivadas de contratos ya extinguidos— y la inviabilidad, en tal caso, de la exoneración contenida en el plan de liquidación.