El Tribunal Supremo confirma en casación la procedencia de imponer sanción en supuestos de operaciones de reestructuración empresarial carentes de motivos económicos válidos sobre la base de argumentos que, en última instancia, lo llevan a reconducir la operación al campo de la simulación negocial.

1. Análisis de la Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 13 de diciembre del 2016 (rec. 2211/2015)

La Audiencia Nacional, en una interesante sentencia, ha matizado el criterio que desde la Administración ha venido manteniéndose en muchos casos en virtud del cual la presencia de una segunda finalidad en las operaciones de reestructuración empresarial, añadida a la de perseguir una auténtica reorganización de la entidad, conllevaría, partiendo del análisis conjunto de la operación, la exclusión de la posibilidad de aplicar el régimen especial previsto a efectos del impuesto sobre sociedades para las citadas operaciones.

Simple retention of title clauses are commonplace and generally effective in contracts for the sale of goods. However, extending their effect to the proceeds of sale of such goods requires careful drafting.

The Court of Appeal has provided some further clarity around the creation and effects of fiduciary obligations in relation to such clauses.[1]

Proceeds of sale clauses

The Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Act 2015 has undoubtedly strengthened the position of tenants and increased the responsibilities and challenges facing receivers appointed by secured lenders over residential investment properties. While the added protections for tenants are to be welcomed, certain provisions of the Act result in relatively onerous obligations on receivers who are already faced with practical difficulties when seeking to deal with and realise the secured asset in accordance with their duties.

The High Court has reiterated that cross-examination will not generally be permitted on an interlocutory application, or where there is no conflict of fact on the affidavits.

In McCarthy v Murphy,^[1] the defendant mortgagor was not permitted to cross-examine the plaintiff (a receiver) or a bank employee who swore a supporting affidavit.

Background

Two recent judgments have brought further clarity in relation to the rights acquirers of loan portfolios to enforce against borrowers:

In AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Toole & anor [2016] IEHC 368 the High Court determined that a bank was not prevented from relying on a mortgage as security for all sums due by the defendants, despite issuing a redemption statement which omitted this fact.

In order to understand this case, it is necessary to set out the chronology of events:

El Tribunal Supremo acepta que la ausencia de entendimiento entre los socios pueda considerarse un motivo económico válido en las operaciones de reestructuración empresarial cuando aquéllos puedan probar que sus discrepancias en cuanto a la organización empresarial condicionan la viabilidad de la empresa.

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.

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.