A license agreement “deemed rejected by operation of law” could not be acquired under a court-approved asset purchase agreement, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Oct. 29, 2018. In re Provider Meds LLC, 2018 WL 5317445, *2 (5th Cir. Oct. 29, 2018). Although the acquirer claimed “that it purchased a patent license from [the] debtors in bankruptcy sales of their estates,” the court explained that “a rejected executory contract … could not have been transferred by the bankruptcy sales in question … .” Id., at *1.

“The right of setoff … allows entities to apply their mutual debts against each other to avoid the pointless exercise of ‘making A pay B when B owes A.’” held the Seventh Circuit on Aug. 17, 2018. Berg v. Social Security Administration, 900 F.3d 864, 868 (7th Cir. 2018). But the Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) limits “a creditor’s right of setoff during the ninety-day period prior to the” date of bankruptcy, said the court. Id.

La Sentencia del 11 de julio de 2018 consolida la jurisprudencia del Tribunal Supremo que reconoce la existencia de un grupo de sociedades cuando el control es ejercido por una persona física.

Bankruptcy

Legal Alert

Authors

George P. Angelich Partner New York, NY 212.457.5423 [email protected]

M. Douglas Flahaut Counsel Los Angeles, CA 213.443.7559 [email protected]

A defendant creditor in a preference suit may offset (a) the amount of later “new value” (i.e., additional goods) it gave the Chapter 11 debtor against (b) the debtor’s earlier preferential payment to the creditor, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on Aug. 14, 2018. In re BFW Liquidation LLC, 2018 WL 3850101 (11th Cir. Aug. 14, 2018). Even when the creditor was paid for the new goods, stressed the court, Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) “§ 547(c)(4) does not require new value to remain unpaid.” Id., at *5.

A bankruptcy court properly dismissed a creditor’s involuntary bankruptcy petition “for cause” when it “would serve none of the Bankruptcy Code’s goals or purposes . . . and [when] the sole [petitioning] creditor is not substantially prejudiced by remedies available under state law,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Aug. 14, 2018. In re Murray, 2018 WL 3848316, *7 (2d Cir. Aug. 14, 2018). In its view, the bankruptcy court “declined to serve as a ‘rented battle field’ or ‘collection agency’” for a single creditor. Id., at *7.

A purported conditional sale agreement “created a security interest rather than a lease,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on Aug. 7, 2018. In re Pioneer Health Services Inc., 2018 WL 3747537, *3 (5th Cir. Aug. 7, 2018). Affirming the lower courts’ finding “that the relevant agreements were not ‘true leases,’” the court rejected a bank’s “motion to compel payment under [its] contract as an unexpired lease or an administrative expense.” Id., at *1. The economic substance, not the form of the transaction, was decisive.

La reciente Sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del TS de 26 de abril de 2018 analiza una cesión en pago realizada justo antes de la declaración de concurso. Atendiendo a las circunstancias concretas del caso (quita del 50% del crédito cancelado; acreedor sin vinculación ni condición especial; convenio posterior con quita similar), el Supremo considera que no procede rescindir la operación.

El Tribunal Supremo considera que la falta de legitimación para recurrir de una concursada en liquidación fue subsanada con la ratificación posterior de su administración concursal.

La sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo de 23 de mayo de 2018 (Ponente Ignacio Sancho Gargallo) analiza el papel de la concursada en liquidación y de la administración concursal a la hora de interponer recursos en procedimientos en trámite antes de la declaración de concurso y apertura de la fase de liquidación.

Recientemente, en sus sentencias de fechas 13 de marzo de 2018 y 3 de abril de 2018, el Tribunal Supremo se ha pronunciado acerca de la interpretación del contenido en el artículo 174.5 de la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria (en adelante, “LGT”), relativo a la legitimación del responsable tributario para impugnar, con ocasión del recurso frente al acuerdo de derivación de responsabilidad, la liquidación en que tiene su origen dicho acuerdo.