El reconocimiento de un derecho de separación por el atesoramiento abusivo de beneficios supone un mecanismo de protección de la minoría. Su ejercicio, sin embargo, puede resultar perjudicial para la sociedad, que tendrá que abonar al socio saliente el valor de su participación. Por este motivo, siempre se ha planteado la posibilidad de enervar, de algún modo, el ejercicio del derecho. La Sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 25 de enero se ocupa de un caso de esta naturaleza reconociendo, en un supuesto muy concreto, el carácter abusivo del ejercicio del derecho de separación.  

© 2022 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP. In some jurisdictions, this publication may be considered attorney advertising. Past representations are no guarantee of future outcomes. 1 | Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP paulweiss.com FEBRUARY 2022 | ISSUE NUMBER 1 Restructuring Department Bulletin Ken Ziman has joined Paul, Weiss as a Partner in the Restructuring Department Resident in Paul, Weiss’s New York office, Mr.

La CNMV ha publicado un documento con “preguntas y respuestas” que pretende servir de ayuda en la interpretación por las sociedades cotizadas del régimen de operaciones vinculadas tras la reforma introducida por la Ley 5/2021 para la incorporación de la Directiva sobre derechos de los accionistas en las sociedades cotizadas. A continuación, se incluye un resumen de los criterios interpretativos ofrecidos por el organismo supervisor.

Referencias Jurídicas CMS

Artículos de fondo

On August 5, 2021, the Eighth Circuit reversed a district court’s decision to dismiss a confirmation order appeal as equitably moot.[1] The doctrine of equitable mootness can require dismissal of an appeal of a bankruptcy court decision – typically, an order confirming a chapter 11 plan – on equitable grounds when third parties have engaged in significant irreversible transactions

On October 5, 2021, the Tenth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in concluding statutory fee increases that applied only to debtors filing for bankruptcy in judicial districts administered by the United States Trustee Program (the “US Trustee” or the “UST Program”) violated the U.S.

As a matter of practice, chapter 11 plans and confirmation orders routinely discharge administrative expense claims, including those that arise after confirmation of a plan but before its effective date. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (the “Third Circuit”) recently affirmed the bankruptcy court’s statutory authority to do so in Ellis v. Westinghouse Electric Co., LLC, 2021 WL 3852612 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2021).

On July 26, 2021, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the “District Court”) affirmed the Delaware bankruptcy court’s order (the “Confirmation Order”) confirming the chapter 11 liquidation plan (the “Plan”) of Exide Holdings, Inc.

On May 24, 2021, the U.S.

On June 28, 2021, in the chapter 11 cases of Paragon Offshore plc and certain of its affiliates (“Paragon” or the “Debtors”), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware denied the U.S. Trustee’s motion[1] to compel payment of $250,000 in statutory fees assessed against litigation trust distributions.

On June 10, 2021, Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath of the District of Delaware confirmed the chapter 11 plan filed by The Hertz Corporation debtors. In the days just prior to confirmation, the debtors filed a revised plan that proposed to pay unimpaired unsecured creditors postpetition interest at the federal judgment rate. However, the plan reserved to those unsecured creditors the right to later assert entitlement to postpetition interest at higher contractual rates, while also reserving to the debtors the right to argue that no postpetition interest is payable at all.