In another decision affecting Chapter 11 cases, U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge, --- S. Ct. ---, 2018 WL 1143822 (2018), on March 5, 2018, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision, authored by Justice Kagan, affirming the Ninth Circuit’s decision to review the Bankruptcy Court’s determination of a mixed question of fact and law for clear error, rather than de novo.
La Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo ha dictado recientemente una sentencia (STS 693/2017, de 20 de diciembre) que, si bien trae causa de un procedimiento concursal, establece conclusiones muy interesantes desde el punto de vista del derecho societario, en materia de conflictos de interés en el seno de los grupos de sociedades.
La Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo reconoce legitimación para interponer recursos al acreedor coadyuvante en un incidente concursal de acción de reintegración.
On February 27, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sotomayor, resolving a Circuit split over the interpretation of Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution from avoidance on fraudulent transfer grounds.
LA DGRN limita el control por notarios y registradores de la aplicación del 160.f) LSC (venta de activos esenciales) y establece que la norma no será aplicable en operaciones realizadas por las sociedades en liquidación.
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
The Bottom Line
Addressing an issue of first impression in the Eleventh Circuit, the Court in Mantiply v. Horne (In re Horne), 876 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017), recently held that section 362(k)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes payment of attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by debtors in successfully pursuing an action for damages resulting from an automatic stay violation and in defending the damages award on appeal.
What Happened?