La sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 8 abril 2016 realiza unas interesantes consideraciones sobre la compensación en el concurso.
The European Court of Justice has held that a director of an English company can be liable for breach of German company law where insolvency proceedings are opened in Germany.
- 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.
- 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.
In a recent High Court decision, the validity of the appointment of joint receivers by ACC Loan Management Limited by deed under seal was upheld, and an order for possession in favour of those receivers was made.
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.
Bankruptcy law in Ireland is now, broadly speaking, in line with that of the United Kingdom.
In particular, for bankrupts who cooperate with the bankruptcy process:
- bankruptcy will end in one year; and
- their interest in their family home will re-vest in them after 3 years.
Notably however, the courts will have discretion to extend the period of bankruptcy for up to 15 years for non-cooperative individuals and those who have concealed or transferred assets to the detriment of creditors.
A number of recent High Court cases have highlighted the difficulties being faced by receivers in taking possession of agricultural lands. This is a critical issue for receivers who are being faced with mounting costs and delay as a result of the actions of uncooperative borrowers and / or their agents. The cases have highlighted the potential need for greater judicial resources and better and more vigorous case management.
Receivers appointed over agricultural lands are increasingly resorting to the High Court in order to:
1. El artículo 1.1C del reglamento. Valoración