The appellate courts are usually the last stop for parties in business bankruptcy cases. The courts issued at least three provocative, if not questionable, decisions in the past six months. Their decisions have not only created uncertainty, but will also generate further litigation over reorganization plan manipulation, arbitration of routine bankruptcy disputes and the treatment of trademark licenses in reorganization cases. Each decision apparently disposes of routine issues in business cases. A closer look at each case, though, reveals the sad truth: they are anything but routine.

El Tribunal Supremo ha declarado que la responsabilidad solidaria de los administradores sobre la base del art. 367 LSC subsiste, aunque el acreedor conozca, al contratar, la situación de insolvencia de la sociedad. El mero conocimiento de dicha situación por parte del acreedor no es suficiente para acreditar su mala fe al reclamar las deudas a los administradores y, por tanto, estos siguen siendo solidariamente responsables por no promover la disolución si las pérdidas determinaron que el patrimonio neto quedara por debajo de la mitad del capital social.

A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank's motion to compel arbitration of a debtor's asserted violation of the court's discharge injunction, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, 20 (2d Cir. Mar. 7, 2018). Finding a purported "inherent conflict between arbitration of [the debtor's] claim and the Bankruptcy Code," the Second Circuit reasoned that the bankruptcy court "properly considered the conflicting policies in accordance with law." Id., quoting In re United States Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d 631, 641 (2d Cir.

“ . . . [A] bankruptcy court may not designate claims for bad faith simply because (1) a creditor offers to purchase only a subset of available claims in order to block a [reorganization] plan . . . and/or

La responsabilidad solidaria en el pago de deudas tributarias por parte de quienes colaboren en la ocultación y/o transmisión de bienes con la intención de sustraerlos al procedimiento ejecutivo de cobro –impidiendo así su embargo– ha sido recientemente objeto de análisis por parte del Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central (“TEAC”).

“Federal law does not prevent a bona fide shareholder from exercising its right to vote against a bankruptcy petition just because it is also an unsecured creditor,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 22, 2018. In re Franchise Services of North America Inc., 2018 WL 2325909, *1 (5th Cir. May 22, 2018). According to the court, applicable Delaware law would not “nullify the shareholder’s right to vote against the bankruptcy petition.” Id.

Relevance

Recientemente, la Dirección General de Tributos (“DGT”) ha publicado la contestación a la Consulta Vinculante V0259-18, de 7 de febrero de 2018, en la que se analizan las implicaciones que pueden derivarse para un tercero como consecuencia de las liquidaciones provisionales (incluso no habiendo las mismas adquirido firmeza) practicadas a otro sujeto pasivo.

Desde hace ya tiempo la Administración Tributaria ha venido aplicando, si bien no de forma frecuente, el sistema de responsabilidades regulado en la Ley 58/2003, de 17 de diciembre, General Tributaria (en adelante LGT), en los supuestos en los que el deudor a la Hacienda Pública se encontraba en situación de concurso. 

LEXISNEXIS A.S. PRATT

APRIL/MAY 2018

EDITOR'S NOTE: COMPARATIVE LAW Steven A. Meyerowitz

WHAT'S PAST IS PROLOGUE: THE EUROPEAN MOVEMENT TOWARD HARMONIZED PRE-INSOLVENCY BUSINESS RESTRUCTURINGS CONTRASTED WITH THE AMERICAN PREFERENCE FOR GOING-CONCERN ASSET SALES Harry Rajak, Patrick E. Mears, and Edward O. Mears

LANDMARK COURT OPINION INCREASES LIABILITY RISK PROFILE FOR GERMAN PORTFOLIO COMPANY MANAGEMENT Bernd Meyer-Lwy and Carl Pickerill

SPLIT FIRST CIRCUIT PREVENTS NON-DEBTOR LICENSEE FROM USING REJECTED TRADEMARK LICENSE Michael L. Cook

A bankruptcy trustee could not “avoid [a] debtor’s transfer” of encumbered asset sale proceeds when the debtor holds the funds “as a mere disbursing agent [under] a contract that” restricted its use, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 18, 2018. Keach v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Railway Co. (In re Montreal, Me. & Atl. Ry.), 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 9772 *14 (1st Cir. Apr. 18, 2018).