Este mes apenas se han publicado resoluciones que consideremos reseñables, sólo tres de tres audiencias provinciales nos han parecido dignas de atención. A cambios las tres hacen pronunciamentos muy interesantes.

Audiencias Provinciales

Compensación de pagos entre un hotel y su operador por derivarse de una misma relación contractual.

The Supreme Court's judgment in BTI v Sequana is long-awaited, and welcome. The court has confirmed that directors do have a common law creditors' duty, and that it works on a sliding scale basis.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that in a solvent debtor case, unsecured creditors have an equitable right to postpetition interest at the applicable contractual or state law rate in order to be deemed unimpaired.

Tribunal Supremo

Jurisprudencia de la Sala de lo Contencioso del Tribunal Supremo: El adquirente de la unidad productiva se subroga en las deudas de la Seguridad Social anteriores al concurso respecto de la totalidad de los trabajadores de la concursada.

Sentencia 577/2022 del Tribunal Supremo, Sala de lo Contencioso, de 17 de mayo de 2022. Ponente: José Manuel Bandrés Sánchez-Cruzat.

In the latest issue of the Restructuring Department Bulletin, we highlight recent decisions impacting the restructuring arena, including an order in the Southern District of New York finding that U.S.

Tribunal Supremo

Calificación de un crédito en el concurso de un hipotecante no deudor que es además fiador solidario. Cumplida la contingencia el crédito debe reconocerse como privilegiado especial (art. 270.1º TRLC)

© 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.

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).