In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding, 580 U.S. __(2017), decided on March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, without the consent of impaired creditors, a bankruptcy court cannot approve a "structured dismissal" that provides for distributions deviating from the ordinary priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code. The ruling reverses the decisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and the U.S.

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

The immediate effect of Jevic will be that practitioners may no longer structure dismissals in any manner that deviates from the priority scheme of the Bankruptcy Code without the consent of impaired creditors.

In today's low interest rate environment, the difference between a contractual interest rate and the federal judgment rate can be quite significant. It is not surprising, therefore, that this issue has become hotly litigated in cases involving solvent Chapter 11 debtors. Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in Colfin Bulls Funding A v. Paloian (In re Dvorkin Holdings), 547 B.R. 880 (N.D. Ill.

Puerto Rico is in the midst of a ­financial crisis. Over the past few years, its public debt skyrocketed while its government revenue sharply declined. In order to address its economic problems and to avoid mass public-worker layoffs and cuts in public services, the unincorporated U.S. territory issued billions of dollars in face value of municipal bonds. These bonds were readily saleable to investors in the United States due to their tax-exempt status and comparatively high yields.

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.

On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, Case No. 15-145.

Adding to the unsettled body of case law on the enforceability of prepetition waivers of the automatic stay, on April 27, 2016, the U.S.

In In re Zair, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49032 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 12, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York became the latest to take sides on the emerging issue of “forced vesting” through a chapter 13 plan. After analyzing Bankruptcy Code §§ 1322(b)(9) and 1325(a)(5), the court concluded that a chapter 13 debtor could not, through a chapter 13 plan, force a mortgagee to take title to the mortgage collateral.

Background

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.