Payments owed to a shareholder by a bankrupt debtor, which are not quite dividends but which certainly look a lot like dividends, should be treated like the equity interests of a shareholder and subordinated to claims by creditors of the debtor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Sept. 3, 2019. In re Linn Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 4149481 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019).

A credit-bidding lender (“Lender”) acquired a debtor’s assets “in ‘good faith’ and ‘without collusion,’ the purchase price ‘was not controlled by any agreement among potential bidders,’ and [Lender] had not ‘engaged in any conduct that would cause or permit the Purchase Agreement to be avoided or costs and damages to be imposed under section 363(n) of the Bankruptcy Code,’” held the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York on Sept. 10, 2019. In re Waypoint Leasing Holdings, Ltd., 2019 WL 4273889, *11 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Sept. 10, 2019).

“[A] party moving for substantive consolidation must provide notice of the motion to the creditors of a putative consolidated non-debtor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sept. 9, 2019. In re Mihranian, 2019 WL 4252115 (9th Cir. Sept. 9, 2019) (emphasis added).

“… [P]ayments owed to a shareholder by a bankrupt debtor, which are not quite dividends but which certainly look a lot like dividends, should be treated like the equity interests of a shareholder and subordinated to claims by creditors of the debtor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Sept. 3, 2019. In re Linn Energy, LLC, 2019 WL 4149481 (5th Cir. Sept. 3, 2019).

The Third Circuit recently took a “pragmatic approach” when affirming lower court orders denying a stay of bankruptcy settlement distributions pending appeal. In re S.S. Body Armor I, Inc., 2019 WL 2588533 (3d Cir. June 25, 2019). After holding that the district court’s “stay denial order” was “final” for jurisdictional purposes, it also confirmed “the applicable standard of review” on motions for stays pending appeals.

Relevance

When a Chapter 11 debtor never sought “court approval to assume” an executory service contract, it “did not assume” the contract, held the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on June 28, 2019. In re Toys “R” Us, Inc., 2019 WL 271305, *1 (E.D. Va. June 28, 2019).

La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 710/2019, de 8 de marzo, resuelve en casación, por primera vez, creo, el extremo relativo a la oponibilidad al concurso de una condición resolutoria acompañada de una cláusula penal de retención de la totalidad del precio ya pagado por el comprador inmobiliario insolvente. Según la Sala, la condición resolutoria (inmobiliaria) es plenamente oponible al concurso; en este caso se hallaba inscrita, pero no parece que esta condición haya sido relevante para su efectividad.

The Third Circuit recently took a “pragmatic approach” when affirming lower court orders denying a stay of bankruptcy settlement distributions pending appeal. In re S.S. Body Armor I, Inc., 2019 WL 2588533 (3d Cir. June 25, 2019). After holding that the district court’s “stay denial order” was “final” for jurisdictional purposes, it also confirmed “the applicable standard of review” on motions for stays pending appeals.

Relevance

Interesante Resolución de la Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado de 5 junio 2019. En el origen, se trata de la inscripción de una venta directa de bien hipotecado, hecha en liquidación concursal, por un valor inferior al de tasación, pero sin contar con el consentimiento del acreedor hipotecario, como impone el artículo 155.4 de la Ley Concursal (LCon). Según la administración concursal, este consentimiento no es preciso, pues en virtud del artículo 97 ha desaparecido el crédito hipotecario por no estar incluido en la lista ni haber sido ésta objeto de impugnación.

Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo 227/2019, de 11 abril. Después de la declaración de concurso de la prestataria, la acreedora hipotecaria (una Caja Rural) comunicó un crédito de 117.174,82 euros, que se correspondía a 114.839,44 euros de principal, 1.089,29 euros de intereses remuneratorios y 127,16 euros de intereses de demora. El crédito es clasificado como crédito con privilegio especial. Abierta la liquidación, se procedió a la subasta de las dos fincas sobre las que se había constituido la hipoteca en garantía del reseñado crédito. La subasta se celebró el 11 de marzo de 2013.