In a recent decision (“Energy Future Holdings”) poised to have wide-reaching implications, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decisions of the Bankruptcy and the District Courts to hold that a debtor cannot use a voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing to escape liability for a “make-whole” premium if express contractual language requires such payment when the borrower makes an optional redemption prior to a date certain.
Imagine you are the CEO of company sitting across from an interviewer. The interviewer asks you the age old question, “So tell me about your company’s strengths and weaknesses?” You start thinking about your competitive advantages that distinguish you from competitors. You decide to talk about how you know your customers better than the competition, including who they are, what they need, and how your products and services fit their needs and desires. The interviewer, being somewhat cynical, asks “Aren’t you worried about the liabilities involved with collecting all that data?”
A recent opinion issued by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois reminds us that corporate veil-piercing liability is not exclusive to shareholders. Anyone who is in control of and misuses the corporate structure can be found liable for the obligations of the corporation. The facts of this case, however, did not support personal liability for veil-piecing.
El Tribunal Supremo aborda la cuestión relativa al tratamiento concursal de los créditos por la indemnización derivada de la extinción del contrato de trabajo por incumplimientos graves del empleador, cuando la sentencia se dicta en momento posterior a la declaración del concurso.
Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de fecha 13 de julio de 2016 >>
El nuevo sistema de subastas judiciales electrónicas continúa perfeccionándose tras varios meses desde su implantación en toda España, ofreciendo notables diferencias con respecto a las antiguas subastas presenciales.
El Tribunal Supremo ha aclarado en una reciente sentencia, de fecha 8 de junio de 2016, el orden de pago que corresponde a los honorarios de la administración concursal cuando la masa activa es insuficiente para el abono de la totalidad de los créditos contra la masa. Se distingue, a tal efecto, entre los que resultan estrictamente necesarios para hacer líquidos los activos del concursado y para gestionar el pago, de los que no tienen tal carácter.
In an earlier blog piece we reported on the Third Circuit’s 2015 decision in In re Jevic Holding Corp. where the Court approved a settlement, implemented through a structured dismissal, which allowed junior creditors to receive a distribution prior to senior creditors being paid in full.
Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trustputs an end to one of Puerto Rico’s multi-pronged efforts to deleverage itself.
1. IVA. Medidas de modernización en la Unión Europea
El pasado día 7 de abril la Comisión Europea comunicó la presentación de un Plan de Acción para revitalizar el actual sistema de IVA en la Unión Europea (UE), con el objetivo de hacerlo más sencillo, más impermeable al fraude y propicio para las empresas.
On April 15, 2016, the IRS released a generic legal advice memorandum (GLAM 2016-001) (the “April GLAM”) addressing the impact of so-called “bad boy” guarantees (also known as nonrecourse carve-out guarantees) on the characterization of underlying partnership debt as recourse vs. nonrecourse under Section 752 of the Internal Revenue Code.