En su Sentencia de 1 de marzo de 2019 [RJ 2019/622] el Tribunal Supremo ha venido a interpretar la excepción a la subordinación de los créditos de las personas especialmente relacionadas con el concursado que se contiene en el artículo 92.5º de la Ley Concursal (LC).

Las Sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de 10 de julio y 31 de octubre de 2018 [RJ 2018/2814 y RJ 2018/4729] han debido decidir si una sociedad (TIP) ostentaba el control sobre otra (TRECAM) a los efectos de determinar si esta segunda pertenecía al grupo de la socia única (CAM) de la primera (lo que resultaba relevante para la calificación en el concurso de TRECAM de los créditos de CAM y de otra filial íntegramente participada de esta ultima entidad).

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

En el concurso de acreedores de Cubigel Compressors S. A. U. (Cubigel), la administración concursal calificó de subordinado el crédito de Koxka Technologies S. L. U. (Koxka) por pertenecer esta sociedad al mismo grupo que la primera. De hecho, tanto Cubigel como Koxka eran sociedades unipersonales y sus únicos socios (a su vez sociedades mercantiles) estaban participados en porcentajes del 65 % y del 79 % por una misma persona física.

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.

Pursuant to article 47(1) of the Commercial Companies (Structural Changes) Act ("LME"), spin-offs (partial divisions) are excluded from pre-insolvency acts of disposal susceptible to clawback (avoidance).

An insolvency practitioner filed an avoidance claim, pleading, in the main, that the conveyance of certain real property under the partial division of the insolvent company be held unenforceable and, in the alternative, that the division itself be held unenforceable.

The safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) §546(e) does not protect “transfers that are simply conducted through financial institutions,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on July 28, 2016. FTI Consulting Inc. v. Merit Management Group LP, 2016 WL 4036408, *1 (7th Cir. July 28, 2016).

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.

The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, on May 4, 2015, affirmed U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert D. Drain’s decision confirming the reorganization plan for Momentive Performance Materials Inc. and its affiliated debtors.1 The Bankruptcy Court’s decision was controversial because it forced the debtors’ senior secured creditors to accept new secured notes bearing interest at below- market rates.

Following the Dec. 8 publication by the American Bankruptcy Institute (“ABI”) Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11 of a report (the “Report”) recommending changes to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”),[1] we continue to analyze the proposals contained in the ABI’s 400-page Report. One proposal we wanted to immediately highlight would, if adopted, significantly increase the risk profile for secured lenders.