The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___, No. 16-348, draws attention in passing to a peculiar feature of Wisconsin law on the effect of statutes of limitations.

The Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy trustee to compel return of a payment made to a creditor within 90 days before a bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(4)(A). The justification for compelling the return of preference payments is to level the playing field among creditors by not rewarding those who, perhaps, pressed the debtor the hardest on the eve of bankruptcy.

As we explained in a post yesterday, the Seventh Circuit in In re Bronk (Cirilli v.

In re Bronk (Cirilli v. Bronk), No. 13-1123 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2015), resolved a couple of “questions of first impression,” slip op.

The recent reform of the Bankruptcy Act (operated under RD 11/2014 dated September 5, 2014) intended to extend the bankruptcy agreement modifications in favor of the pre-insolvency restructuring and refinancing agreements which were introduced in March 2014.

The reform has a special provision for privileged creditors with warranties subject to specific valuation formulas, to be adjusted to the actual financial value of the guaranteed credit. Any portion of debts that exceed this value will not be considered as privileged, but will be ordinarily classified.

The Spanish Supreme Court has established the legalconcept of insolvency as an objective requirement forthe Declaration of Insolvency pursuant to Section 2.1 ofthe bankruptcy Act by virtue of the decision taken by the Court on April 1, 2014.

The power of an appellate court in the federal system to stay the orders of lower courts or to enjoin conduct that lower courts have refused to enjoin, so as to preserve the appellate court’s jurisdiction to review those orders on ultimate appeal, is clearly established yet infrequently invoked. In addition to other potential sources, the power derives from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.

The matter subject to this analysis is decision taken by a Bankruptcy Administration dealing with three companies of the same company group which are involved in a bankruptcy proceeding. Given the situation and in response of the confusing information of assets, the Administration under discussion decided to gather the three companies joining all their creditors in a sole debt pooling and besides, joining all the rights and assets of the three companies.  

The object of this article is to analyze a controversial issue which is considered in recent times by the Mercantile Courts as a current incident involved in the Bankruptcy Proceedings and more specifically, to analyze the Judgement issued by the Court of First Instance no. 9 and Mercantile Court of Cordoba dated April, 19th 2010, in which the aforementioned incident is involved.  

This incident is essentially based on establishing the treatment that should be granted to the additional guarantees provided by third parties in bankruptcy proceedings.