The Bottom Line

La Sentencia 3019/2017 de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo, de 18 de julio de 2017 aclara que los administradores sociales, tanto los de derecho, como los de hecho, serán responsables solidarios por las deudas contraídas por la sociedad como consecuencia de un despido, declarado improcedente después del acaecimiento de una causa de disolución.

The Bottom Line

The Third Circuit recently held, in Schepis v. Burtch (In re Pursuit Capital Management, LLC), No. 16-3953, 2017 WL 4783009 (3d Cir. Oct. 24, 2017), that under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code, if a party does not seek a stay pending appeal of a sale order, it is highly likely that any appeal of such sale will be determined statutorily moot. That was certainly the case here.

What Happened?

Background

The Bottom Line

On October 20, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit issued a long-awaited decision in In re MPM Silicones, LLC (“Momentive”) holding that, with one important exception, that the plan of reorganization confirmed by the bankruptcy court comports with Chapter 11. Case No. 15-1682 (2d Cir. Oct. 20, 2017).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit recently overturned its own prior guidance to hold that an official creditors’ committee had an unconditional statutory right to intervene in an adversary proceeding. The First Circuit joined the Second and Third Circuits to recognize that the right to intervene provided by the Bankruptcy Code is not limited to the main bankruptcy case, contrary to the long-standing rule in the Fifth Circuit. However, the First Circuit also held that the scope of intervention may be qualified, with limits set by the trial court on a case-by-case basis.

The Bankruptcy Code limits in many ways the rights of nondebtors under contracts with a debtor in bankruptcy. There are, however, some crucial exceptions, which Congress deemed important for the orderly function of the securities markets. In particular, agreements governing securities repurchase (or repo) transactions involving a financial institution may be terminated and liquidated notwithstanding the bankruptcy filing of the repo seller.

La Dirección General de los Registros y del Notariado, en su Resolución de 14 de junio de 2017, ha desestimado el recurso interpuesto contra la negativa del Registrador Mercantil de Burgos a inscribir una escritura de nombramiento y cese de administradores. El motivo de la negativa reside en la previa disolución de pleno derecho de la sociedad en virtud de la Disposición Transitoria Primera de la Ley 2/2007, 15 de marzo, de Sociedades Profesionales.

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

This article provides a brief overview of the somewhat related doctrines of setoff and recoupment in the Chapter 11 context. Setoff is recognized in the Bankruptcy Code to offset the claims of creditors and the debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding. Recoupment is a common law doctrine of similar effect. Sometimes overlooked by debtors and creditors alike, these doctrines can be of critical consequence in the settling of accounts between a creditor and the bankrupt debtor.

Setoff