On March 19, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a unanimous decision[1] affirming that the mutuality requirement of section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code must be strictly construed and, therefore, that triangular setoffs are not permissible in bankruptcy.

In a decision arising out of Tribune’s 2008 bankruptcy, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a decision affirming confirmation of the media conglomerate’s chapter 11 plan over objections raised by senior noteholders who contended that the plan violated their rights under the Bankruptcy Code by not according them the full benefit of their prepetition subordination agreements with other creditors.

Un accionista solicitó del juzgado mercantil que se acordara la disolución judicial de la compañía en la que participaba (y que se nombrara liquidador a quien ostentaba la condición de administrador) por haberse producido la paralización de los órganos sociales (art. 363.1.d Ley de Sociedades de Capital [LSC]). En el procedimiento no se discutió la realidad de esta paralización, pero se alegó —para oponerse a lo solicitado— que se había incumplido el requisito de la previa convocatoria de junta general extraordinaria.

Se presentó a inscripción en el Registro Mercantil escritura pública de fusión en la que la sociedad absorbente estaba íntegramente participada por la sociedad absorbida (que se encontraba en liquidación). Los acuerdos de fusión fueron adoptados por el socio único de la sociedad absorbente (esto es, por la sociedad absorbida, representada por el liquidador). La registradora denegó la inscripción argumentando, entre otras cosas, que resultaba preciso también el acuerdo de la junta general de la sociedad absorbida.

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC that a trademark licensee may retain certain rights under a trademark licensing agreement even if the licensor enters bankruptcy and rejects the licensing agreement at issue. Relying on the language of section 365(g) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Supreme Court emphasized that a debtor’s rejection of an executory contract has the “same effect as a breach of that contract outside bankruptcy” and that rejection “cannot rescind rights that the contract previously granted.”

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).

In a recent decision arising out of the Republic Airways bankruptcy, Judge Sean Lane of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that the liquidated damages provisions of certain aircraft leases were improper penalties and, thus, “unenforceable as against public policy” under Article 2A the New York Uniform Commercial Code. In re Republic Airways Holdings Inc., 2019 WL 630336 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Feb. 14, 2019).

On February 8, 2019, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, affirmed a Bankruptcy Court order enjoining a claimant from pursuing claims against a debtor’s non-debtor affiliates based upon third-party release and injunction provisions included in the debtor’s confirmed chapter 11 plan. In re CJ Holding Co., 2019 WL 497728 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2019).

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 United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently issued a 2–1 decision affirming the ruling of the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which reconsidered its prior approval of a $275 million termination fee in connection with a proposed merger. In re Energy Future Holdings Corp., No. 18-1109, 2018 WL 4354741, at *14 (3d Cir. Sept. 13, 2018).