Concedida una subvención pública, fue posteriormente anulada en vía administrativa, con resolución que obligaba a devolver su importe. Entretanto el beneficiario de la subvención había sido declarado en concurso. Las dos instancias judiciales entendieron que la deuda de restitución es una deuda de la masa, por haber tenido lugar su devengo después de la declaración de concurso.

Se trata de un sumario y elocuentememo firmado por dos juristas de Kirkland & Ellis LLP, London, y publicado enInternational Corporate Rescue, vol. 15, issue 6, 2018, que resumo en lo que importa. Siempre suponiendo un hard Brexit. (1) Los tribunales de UK no reconocerán —salvo implementación por UK de la Ley Modelo de UNCITRAL— procedimientos de insolvencia extranjeros si afectan a titulares de créditos sometidos a Derecho inglés que disienten del acuerdo y no estuvieron presentes en el procedimiento extranjero.

Se explora la posibilidad de que los acreedores financieros de la masa del concurso puedan solicitar una homologación judicial de un acuerdo de refinanciación de sus créditos contra la empresa ya consursada.

On November 8, 2018, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) issued a decision dismissing an involuntary chapter 11 case filed against Taberna Preferred Funding IV, Ltd. (“Taberna”), a CDO, by holders of non-recourse notes (the “Petitioning Creditors”).

Parties involved in cross-border bankruptcy/restructuring situations may be wary of the risk that repeated litigation in different courts with jurisdiction over the same debtor will result in conflicting judgments. The principle of “universalism” is the theory whereby the decisions of one primary jurisdiction addressing a debtor’s bankruptcy/restructuring issues are given universal effect by courts in other jurisdictions.

En el concurso de la sociedad EM se incluyeron en el inventario de la masa activa dos fincas inscritas. El inventario no fue impugnado en el plazo previsto en el artículo 96.1 de la Ley Concursal (LCon). Tras la preclusión del mencionado plazo impugnatorio, la actora presentó una demanda para que se la declarase propietaria de una parte proindivisa de las fincas.

The new company shareholders, who have accessed ownership of the securities by ordinary purchase or by enforcement of a pledge of securities, must beware above all of the hitherto dormant claims of former shareholders and directors.

On September 21, 2018, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware issued a decision holding that the Bankruptcy Court had constitutional authority to approve the nonconsensual third-party releases contained in the debtor’s plan of reorganization. The District Court also dismissed as equitably moot all other issues raised on appeal by the appellant in connection with the confirmation order.

The consummation of a plan of reorganization typically involves a series of complex actions by the debtor and its stakeholders (for example, existing debt and equity are extinguished and new debt and equity issued in their place). If an appeal of a confirmation order is taken, and the appeal reaches the appellate court following consummation of the plan, it raises the difficult question of whether it is possible to grant effective relief to the appellant at that stage. As a constitutional matter, courts — including appellate courts — cannot hear matters that have become moot.

On August 14, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a decision holding that section 547(c)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides a defense to the avoidance of preferential transfers to the extent the transferee provided new value to the debtor,[1] does not require new value to remain unpaid as of the date the bankruptcy petition was filed.