A bankruptcy court properly denied a bank’s motion to compel arbitration of a debtor’s asserted violation of the court’s discharge injunction, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on March 7, 2018. In re Anderson, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 5703, *20 (2d Cir. March 7, 2018).

Fifth Circuit Rejects Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Fraudulent Transfer Claims

By Michael L. Cook*

THE BANKING LAW JOURNAL

First Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Fraudulent Transfer and Fiduciary Duty Claims

Michael L. Cook* This article discusses a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decision holding that the debt-financed purchase of a business was not a fraudulent transfer and did not violate the fiduciary duty of the company's directors.

La reciente Sentencia de la Sala de lo Civil del TS de 15 de diciembre de 2017 se pronuncia sobre el criterio temporal de aplicación del Real Decreto-Ley 6/2013, para la protección de los créditos adquiridos por la SAREB frente a una eventual subordinación. Según el Tribunal Supremo, si la calificación del crédito era definitiva antes de la entrada en vigor de la norma, no puede modificarse posteriormente.

La Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo ha dictado recientemente una sentencia (STS 693/2017, de 20 de diciembre) que, si bien trae causa de un procedimiento concursal, establece conclusiones muy interesantes desde el punto de vista del derecho societario, en materia de conflictos de interés en el seno de los grupos de sociedades.

La Sala de lo Civil del Tribunal Supremo reconoce legitimación para interponer recursos al acreedor coadyuvante en un incidente concursal de acción de reintegración.

The securities safe harbor protection of Bankruptcy Code (“Code”) § 546(e) does not protect allegedly fraudulent “transfers in which financial institutions served as mere conduits,” held the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 27, 2018. Merit Management Group LP v. FTI Consulting Inc., 2018 WL 1054879, *7 (2018). Affirming the Seventh Circuit’s reinstatement of the bankruptcy trustee’s complaint alleging the insolvent debtor’s overpayment for a stock interest, the Court found the payment not covered by §546(e) and thus recoverable. The district court had dismissed the trustee’s claim.

LA DGRN limita el control por notarios y registradores de la aplicación del 160.f) LSC (venta de activos esenciales) y establece que la norma no será aplicable en operaciones realizadas por las sociedades en liquidación.

A super-priority debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) lender with a lien on all of the debtor’s assets has no “better claim” to a Chapter 11’s debtor’s leased property than the lessor, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on Jan. 11, 2018.Banco Panamericano, Inc. v. City of Peoria, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 738, *12 (7th Cir. Jan. 11, 2018). According to the court, the “lease between [the debtor] and [the lessor] gave [the debtor] no post-termination property interest” in “installations or structures” on the debtor’s property.Id.

“[T]he largely debt-financed purchase of a family-owned [business] was not a fraudulent [transfer] and did not amount to a violation of the fiduciary duty of the company’s directors,” held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on Dec. 4, 2017. In re Irving Tanning Co., 2017 W.L. 5988834, *1 (1st Cir. Dec. 4, 2017).