Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows debtors to confirm plans that provide for the payment of their debts through future earnings while, at the same time, retaining their assets. If a creditor wishes to receive payments pursuant to a debtor’s plan, the creditor must file a proof of claim. And it must do so timely.

La sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 8 abril 2016 realiza unas interesantes consideraciones sobre la compensación en el concurso.

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan recently considered the issue of whether a Chapter 7 trustee may bring a cause of action against a debtor for damages caused to the bankruptcy estate by the debtor’s alleged failure to comply with the debtor’s duties under section 521 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy is all about the debtor’s assets, specifically how many and who gets them. The reason that many bankruptcy cases are contentious is that the parties often disagree about the amount of assets available for distribution to creditors, as well as how the assets should be divvied up.

1. A common problem with re financing arrangements homologated (i.e., sanctioned by a court) pursuant to the 4th additional provision of the Spanish Insolvency Act (abbrev. LCon) is becoming apparent of late where the signatories to such an arrangement undertake to open or keep open lines of credit or otherwise provide the debtor with new resources and, once such arrangement has been homologated, funding needs complementary or different to those contained in the homologated refinancing arrangement arise.

1. Está convirtiéndose en un problema usual en las refinanciaciones homologadas de la disposición adicional cuarta de la Ley Concursal (LCon) en las que los firmantes se comprometen a abrir o a mantener líneas de créditos o de alguna manera a facilitar al deudor recursos nuevos que, obtenida la aprobación judicial, se presenten luego necesidades previstas o imprevistas de financiación suplementaria o distinta de la plasmada en el acuerdo de refinanciación aprobado.

There is nothing quite like obtaining a new customer or getting a new big sale - the prospect of recurring revenue from a new source, the validation of business strategy, or the culmination of a successful negotiation.

However, there is nothing more disheartening than when a new customer is unable or unwilling to pay for the product you just shipped or services you just provided. Perhaps there is one thing that is worse, when a long-term customer fails to pay.

Con la reforma del artículo 90.1.6.º de la Ley Concursal (LCon) dispuesta por la Ley 40/2015 se generalizó un casi entusiasta clamor entre los operadores del sector. Se consideraba que quedaba definitivamente resuelto el perverso historial con- cursal de las prendas sobre créditos futuros. Yo no lo veo tan claro y puedo imaginarme más de un modo por el que un juez concursal averso a este tipo de garantías puede arruinar aquel entusiasmo por vía de una interpretación no totalmente absurda del precepto nuevo.

The amendment to art. 90(1)(6) of the Insolvency Act 22/2003 (abbrev. LCON) by the Public Sector (Legal Regime) Act 40/2015 was welcomed almost enthusiastically by most market agents. It was felt that the inconsistent treatment bestowed on pledges of future claims (hereinafter, ‘PFC’) would finally be a thing of the past. I myself am not altogether convinced that this is the case, being able to envisage more than one way an insolvency judge, averse to this type of security interests, can dampen the aforementioned enthusiasm by way of a not overly absurd interpretation of the new provision.

In the Summer of 2014, we wrote about a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan (the “Bankruptcy Court”) involving an intra-family squabble.