In judgment 297/2016 of September 22, 2016, by Commercial Court No. 6 of Madrid, the court rejects the appeal filed by a dissenting entity affected by a court-sanctioned refinancing agreement. The appeal argued the existence of a disproportionate sacrifice due to the standstill of the notarial enforcement of a pledge on shares already executed.

In its judgment 500/2016 of July 19, 2016, the Supreme Court interprets article 62.4 of the Insolvency Act, regulating the effects of contract resolution during insolvency:

If an agency agreement is resolved due to the agent being declared insolvent, the business owner must compensate the agent for clientele if the requirements under the Agency Act are met (the agent brought new clients or clearly increased transactions with existing clients, and the previous activity is still beneficial for the business owner). 

In its writ dated February 2, 2016, the First Instance Civil Court No. 38 of Barcelona raised a preliminary issue to the Court of Justice of the European Union. In that writ, it requested the EU court to determine whether the business practice of assigning or buying credits without offering consumers the possibility to settle the debt by paying the assignee the outstanding amount is in line with EU law.

A declaration sought by the Liquidator of an insolvent company that certain payments made to a director constituted fraudulent preference has been refused by the High Court in FF Couriers Limited & Companies Acts: Keane -v- Day & ors [2016] IEHC

En los años de mayor crisis económica se dispararon las compraventas de unidades productivas autónomas en el marco de procedimientos concursales. La Ley Concursal regulaba estas compraventas permitiendo a los adjudicatarios reflotar un negocio minorando las cargas acumuladas hasta el momento del concurso.Uno de los debates en estas situaciones es el alcance de la responsabilidad de la empresa adjudicataria sobre las obligaciones laborales de los trabajadores afectos a la unidad productiva autónoma.

1.                 BACKGROUND

Judgment of the Court of Appeal of Porto of February 15, 2016

A recent decision of the Court of Appeal has seemingly halted a trend towards leniency in the High Court in applications for the restriction and disqualification of directors of insolvent companies, particularly where the company has been struck off the register of companies for failing to file annual returns.

A credit institution appealed the ruling that approved the agreement claiming that the creditors meeting had allowed the presence and vote by a city council that, in its opinion, did not have such right because it was the holder of 100% of the share capital of the insolvent party.