The most innovative features of the new Insolvency Code include, among others: (i) the introduction of safeguard obligations aimed at detecting corporate distress and promoting the adoption of restructuring tools at an early stage; (ii) a more favourable approach to procedures allowing for business continuation on a going concern basis, as opposed to those leading to liquidation of the company; and (iii) specific provisions concerning the insolvency / restructuring of company groups.
Introduction
Recientes resoluciones judiciales han puesto en el foco la problemática aprobación judicial de una liquidación societaria cuando existe una situación de bloqueo por parte de alguno de los socios que impide adoptar acuerdos. Analizamos, a continuación, lo que han dicho los tribunales sobre los acuerdos sociales negativos y su posible impugnabilidad.
(SJM nº 13 de Madrid de 23 de marzo de 2021 y SAP de La Coruña de 1 de abril de 2022)
El Consejo de Ministros ha acordado extender el plazo de solicitud de la financiación avaladapor el Instituto de Crédito Oficial (ICO), CESCE o CERSA (la financiación avalada), así como elevar los umbrales económicos relativos a la refinanciación de la misma, trasladando dichas modificaciones al Código de Buenas Prácticas.
Las medidas que ahora se ven reforzadas o modificadas tienen su origen en el Real Decreto-ley 16/2020, de 28 de abril –del que Garrigues ya se hizo eco en esta publicación–, que fue posteriormente sustituido por la
Il D.L. 24 agosto 2021 n. 118 (Decreto Crisi d’Impresa) è ora legge: il 23 ottobre 2021 è stata pubblicata in Gazzetta Ufficiale la L. 147/2021 di conversione del D.L.
The conversion into statute on 23 October 2021 of the so-called Business Distress Bill adds new provisions to those recently adopted by the Italian government to address corporate distress following the COVID-19 pandemic, to provide companies with new legal tools to prevent the onset of economic distress or overcome reversible financial instability.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently ruled in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtors’ attempt to shield contributions to a 401(k) retirement account from “projected disposable income,” therefore making such amounts inaccessible to the debtors’ creditors.[1] For the reasons explained below, the Sixth Circuit rejected the debtors’ arguments.
Case Background
A statute must be interpreted and enforced as written, regardless, according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, “of whether a court likes the results of that application in a particular case.” That legal maxim guided the Sixth Circuit’s reasoning in a recent decision[1] in a case involving a Chapter 13 debtor’s repeated filings and requests for dismissal of his bankruptcy cases in order to avoid foreclosure of his home.
On January 14, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court decided City of Chicago, Illinois v. Fulton (Case No. 19-357, Jan. 14, 2021), a case which examined whether merely retaining estate property after a bankruptcy filing violates the automatic stay provided for by §362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court overruled the bankruptcy court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in deciding that mere retention of property does not violate the automatic stay.
Case Background
La Sala Primera del Tribunal Supremo ha dictado una nueva sentencia, la 46/2021, de 2 de febrero, en la que se confirma lo ya señalado en la Sentencia 4/2021, de 15 de enero de 2021. Dos sentencias miméticas en todo (casi hasta en las partes).
La doctrina ahora asentada por la 46/2021 se resume: