El tribunal de un Estado miembro que conoce del procedimiento de insolvencia tiene competencia exclusiva para conocer de las acciones revocatorias ejercitadas dentro del mismo

Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea de 14 de noviembre de 2018

El 6 de junio el Consejo de la Unión Europea aprobó la Propuesta de Directiva del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo sobre marcos de reestructuración preventiva, segunda oportunidad y medidas para aumentar la eficacia de los procedimientos de condonación, insolvencia y reestructuración.

Con ello se pone fin al proceso legislativo de la Directiva y queda pendiente solo de publicación en el Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea (DOUE).

En términos generales, la directiva aprobada impone a los Estados miembros la implementación de normativa armonizada relativa a:

A member state’s court entertaining an insolvency proceeding has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain clawback actions brought within the proceeding

On June 6 the Council of the European Union approved the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on preventive restructuring frameworks, second chance and measures to increase the efficiency of restructuring, insolvency and discharge procedures.

This marks an end to the legislative process of the Directive, which is now pending to be publisged in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Put concisely, the approved directive imposes an obligation on member states to implement harmonized legislation on:

A recent decision out of the District Court for the Southern District of New York may bring greater certainty to the interpretation of what constitutes a “financial institution” in connection with the safe harbor in section 546(e) of the bankruptcy code. The decision, In re Tribune Fraudulent Conveyance Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. Lexis 69081 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.

Merit Management

Sutton 58 Associates LLC v. Pilevsky et al., is a New York case which gets to the heart of the enforceability of classic single-purpose entity restrictions in commercial real estate lending. At issue is how far a third-party may go to cause a violation of a borrower’s SPE covenants, and whether those covenants are enforceable at all.

A Defaulted Construction Loan and Frustrated Attempts to Foreclose:

In Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved a question that vexed the lower courts and resulted in a circuit split: does the rejection by a debtor-licensor of a trademark license agreement terminate the licensee’s rights under the rejected license?

Selection of the main restructuring and insolvency judgments.

Requirements for subordination of claims notified out of time

For a claim notified out of time not to be classed as subordinate, it must meet the following tests: (i) it must appear in the debtors’ documents; (ii) it must be due and payable; (iii) the fact that it exists and is payable must be beyond doubt; and (iv) it cannot be overlooked by the insolvency practitioner when drawing up the list of creditors by reason of the circumstances of the case.

Under article 55 of the Spanish Insolvency Law, it is not allowed after the insolvency order to take individual enforcement action or initiate tax or administrative enforced collection proceedings against the debtor’s property; although until approval of the liquidation plan, administrative enforcement proceedings in which an attachment order has been issued are allowed to continue, together with enforcement actions for employee claims in which the insolvent company's assets have been attached, although certain restrictions apply.