Not every sale of a unit of production in an insolvency proceeding is free of VAT
Central Economic-Administrative Tribunal decision of March 21, 2018
La crisis económica en la que se vio sumida España desde el año 2007, y de la que poco a poco el país se viene sobreponiendo, ha espoleado a los 'players' del mercado de reestructuraciones para salir de su zona de confort e introducirse en caminos hasta ahora apenas transitados en nuestro país.
Selección de las principales resoluciones en materia de Reestructuraciones e Insolvencias.
La provisión con cargo a la masa como medida cautelar a favor de un acreedor contingente debe ser material
Auto de la Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona de 3 de abril de 2018
A provision out of assets available to creditors as injunctive relief for holder of contingent claim must actually be material
Decision by Barcelona Provincial Appellate Court on April 3, 2018
On March 14, 2018 the European Commission presented the Second Progress Report on the reduction of non-performing loans (“NPLs”). The report comprises a memo and a factsheet, whose versions in English can be obtained on the website of the European Commission, which also distributed a press release (English version).
El pasado 28 de febrero la Comisión Europea publicó el Borrador de Acuerdo sobre la retirada del Reino Unido de la Unión Europea (“UE”).
On February 28 last the European Commission published the Draft Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (“EU”).
Over the past several years, non-recourse receivables financing has been embraced by many major financial institutions and non-bank investors in the US market. With its (i) favorable regulatory treatment for regulated institutions, (ii) perceived positive risk/reward profile and (iii) adaptability to recent technological advancements such as distributed ledger technology (i.e., blockchain), non-recourse receivables financing likely will grow increasingly popular in the US market.
In In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (“Madoff”),1 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reaffirmed its broad and literal interpretation of section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a safe harbor for transfers made in connection with a securities contract that might otherwise be attacked as preferences or fraudulent transfers.
On August 11, 2009, the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York denied five motions to dismiss bankruptcy cases filed by certain bankruptcy remote, special purpose subsidiaries (SPEs) of General Growth Properties, Inc. (GGP). The motions were filed by or on behalf of secured lenders to the SPEs (Movants) who argued that the bankruptcy filings were inconsistent with the bankruptcy remote structures that they had negotiated with GGP.