Esta Resolución, tramitada con arreglo a lo previsto en el artículo 13 de la Circular 1/2021, de 20 de enero, de la CNMC, por la que se establece la metodología y condiciones del acceso y de la conexión a las redes de transporte y distribución de las instalaciones de producción de energía eléctrica, vendría a completar el marco normativo del acceso y conexión y daría cumplimiento a lo previsto en su Disposición Transitoria Única. De esta forma:

Con la asunción de estas dos autopistas, la empresa pública SEITTSA, dependiente del Ministerio de Fomento, ya gestiona la explotación y el mantenimiento de todas las que han entrado en fase de liquidación concursal, faltando únicamente por asumir la AP-41, “Madrid-Toledo”, que aún no ha llegado a dicha fase.

Revierten así al Estado, las dos últimas autopistas de peaje en fase de liquidación, después de que el Juzgado de lo Mercantil nº 6 de Madrid, aprobase el plan de liquidación de las sociedades concesionarias.

The Cartagena-Vera and Alicante Ring-road sections of the AP-7 motorway are therefore handed back to the state, after Commercial Court 6 of Madrid approved the concessionaire's liquidation plan.

The AP-36 toll road is therefore handed back to the state, after Commercial Court 2 of Madrid approved the concessionaire's liquidation plan.

“[C]ourts may account for hypothetical preference actions within a hypothetical [C]hapter 7 liquidation” to hold a defendant bank (“Bank”) liable for a payment it received within 90 days of a debtor’s bankruptcy, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 7, 2017.In re Tenderloin Health, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 4008, *4 (9th Cir. March 7, 2017).

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (“Bankruptcy Rules”) require each corporate party in an adversary proceeding (i.e., a bankruptcy court suit) to file a statement identifying the holders of “10% or more” of the party’s equity interests. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7007.1(a). Bankruptcy Judge Martin Glenn, relying on another local Bankruptcy Rule (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. R.

A Chapter 11 debtor “cannot nullify a preexisting obligation in a loan agreement to pay post-default interest solely by proposing a cure,” held a split panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Nov. 4, 2016. In re New Investments Inc., 2016 WL 6543520, *3 (9th Cir. Nov. 4, 2016) (2-1).

While a recent federal bankruptcy court ruling provides some clarity as to how midstream gathering agreements may be treated in Chapter 11 cases involving oil and gas exploration and production companies (“E&Ps”), there are still many questions that remain. This Alert analyzes and answers 10 important questions raised by the In re Sabine Oil & Gas Corporation decision of March 8, 2016.[1]

An asset purchaser’s payments into segregated accounts for the benefit of general unsecured creditors and professionals employed by the debtor (i.e., the seller) and its creditors’ committee, made in connection with the purchase of all of the debtor’s assets, are not property of the debtor’s estate or available for distribution to creditors according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — even when some of the segregated accounts were listed as consideration in the governing asset purchase agreement. ICL Holding Company, Inc., et al. v.

Bankruptcy courts may hear state law disputes “when the parties knowingly and voluntarily consent,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on May 26, 2015. Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, 2015 WL 2456619, at *3 (May 26, 2015). That consent, moreover, need not be express, reasoned the Court. Id. at *9 (“Nothing in the Constitution requires that consent to adjudication by a bankruptcy court be express.”). Reversing the U.S.